Communication transforms the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID‐19 pandemic altered healthcare systems globally, causing delays in care delivery and increased anxiety among patients and families. This study examined how hospital stakeholders and clinicians perceived the global impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families. Methods This secondary analysis examined data from a qualitative study consisting of 19 focus groups conducted in 8 languages throughout 16 countries. A codebook was developed with novel codes derived inductively from transcript review. In‐depth analysis focused on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on children with cancer and their families. Results Eight themes describing the impact of the pandemic on patients and their families were identified and classified into three domains: contributing factors ( COVID‐19 Policies, Cancer Treatment Modifications, COVID‐19 Symptoms, Beliefs ), patient‐related impacts ( Quality of Care, Psychosocial impacts, Treatment Reluctance ), and the central transformer ( Communication ). Participants described the ability of communication to transform the effect of contributing factors on patient‐related impacts. The valence of impacts depended on the quality and quantity of communication among clinicians and between clinicians and patients and families. Conclusions Communication served as the central factor impacting whether the COVID‐19 pandemic positively or negatively affected children with cancer and families. These findings emphasize the key role communication plays in delivering patient‐centered care and can guide future development of communication‐centered interventions globally.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".