Connecting Suffering and Hope: The Experience of Children and Adolescents With Cancer During Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundHematopoietic stem cell transplantation is an aggressive, frequent, and relevant therapy for cancer. Studies on this subject predominantly address parents' and health professionals' experiences, and rarely feature the voices of children and adolescents. The purpose of this study is to enhance the understanding of the experiences of children and adolescents with cancer undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.MethodUsing symbolic interactionism and a narrative research method, data was collected and analyzed from in-depth interviews with seven children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years, up to 18 months post-transplant and under oncological follow-up), at the hematopoietic stem cell transplant service of a reference institution in Brazil.FindingsThe experiences are challenging because they involve complex and dual interactions that intertwine social processes and signs related to suffering and hope. Two thematic categories were identified: (Re)living Suffering in Transplantation and Signifying Transplantation as Hope for a New Chance of Life.DiscussionThe experiences of the participants were influenced and marked by past diagnosis and treatment that generated overload, exhaustion, suffering, and fragility in the present. Participants revealed the centrality of the symbolism of transplantation as a "new chance of life" and a propeller of hope and coping oriented towards a future beyond the disease and treatment. Health professionals caring for this population must access the child's and youth's voice to understand their needs, expectations, and feelings, aiming to accommodate them and provide unique support in their battle and life intersected by cancer and transplantation, and the symbolic constructions related to these elements present in their experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".