Parent-adolescent communication and relationships in the context of childhood cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood cancer raises issues as profoundly daunting as they are important for children and adolescents and their parents to discuss with each other while navigating feelings of vulnerability and grief. Research has illuminated parents’ and children’s desires to protect one another from difficult conversations and the impacts of effective communication or avoidance on psychosocial and relational outcomes. However, a crucial gap exists in the literature surrounding children and adolescents’ and their parents’ experiences of and approaches to communicating in the context of childhood cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to explore adolescents’ and parents’ common and unique approaches to talking with each other about topics they identified as important or difficult to discuss, as well as perceived changes over time in communication, relationships, roles, and identities in the context of childhood cancer. Recognizing the inseparability of parent-adolescent communication and relationships, this study was informed by theories of relational dialectics and family communication patterns. Interpretive descriptive methodology guided study design, whereby joint and individual interviews incorporating novel, play-based elicitation strategies with six adolescents with cancer and nine of their parents generated data through doing and talking about communication. Constant comparative analyses of 18 interviews generated two sets of findings. First, reflecting interpretive description’s emphasis on clinical relevance, a thematic summary addressed the research objectives, highlighting: the primary importance of discussing adolescents’ wellbeing; difficulty with conversations that focused on or stirred feelings of vulnerability, grief, and helplessness; and approaches to discussing difficult topics when participants “had to.” Second, a conceptual analysis examined established dialectic tensions in participants’ experiences: integration (e.g. autonomy-connection), expression (e.g. openness- closedness), and freedom-responsibility. The resulting analytic frame illuminated the need for an additional crucial dialectic: vulnerability-resilience. These findings offer a lens through which to understand varied approaches to communication driven by a common relational goal: the mutual reduction of suffering. Parents and adolescents guarded against vulnerability and bolstered resilience through their active presence with each other, as well as efforts to protect and to prepare one another. This conceptualization invites a strengths-based foundation for clinicians seeking to understand and nurture parent-adolescent communication and relationships in the context of childhood cancer.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".