Cited by 19Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFamily Support in IllnessCancer survivorship and care

In sickness and in health: classmates are highly motivated to provide in-hospital support during childhood cancer therapy

Lindgren, Lea H., Schmiegelow, Kjeld, Helms, Anne Sofie, Thorsteinsson, Troels, Larsen, Hanne B.·2017·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objectives Extended hospitalization for school-aged cancer patients increases their risk of social marginalization. School-aged children mature through peer-interaction, but healthcare providers fail to incorporate this in rehabilitation efforts. The RESPECT study offers classmates to cancer patients to become ambassadors during hospital stays. This study explores classmate decision-making patterns about ambassadorship. Methods An open-ended question was prospectively and consecutively provided to classmates (N = 221) (and parents) of 10 children diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and enrolled in the RESPECT study. Statements were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Of 221 classmates, 140 responded (63%). Of these, 81 applied for ambassadorship (median 8/patient), 58 declined, one was undecided. Nine forms were incomplete; leaving 131 in total that revealed 303 statements for analysis. Five major themes emerged: existing friendship (132/303 statements), personal resources (academic, emotional and social) (107/303), attitudes towards the ambassadorship (34/303), hospital environment (18/303) and logistics (12/303). Of the classmates with pre-existing friendships, 77% applied for ambassadorship and 80% with a surplus of personal resources applied. These were predominant predictors for ambassadorship application. Classmate motives were condensed into four archetypes: pre-existing friendship with a surplus of resources (100% applied), non-friend classmates with a surplus…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.4094

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindgren, L. H., Schmiegelow, K., Helms, A. S., Thorsteinsson, T., & Larsen, H. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Larsen, Hanne B.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02-12
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
37-43
ISSN
1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2271263799
Cited by
19
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • The Novo Nordic Foundation
  • The Danish Cancer society
  • Danish Children's Cancer Foundation
  • The Tryg Foundation
  • Karen A. Tholstrup Foundation
  • Arvid Nielsson Foundation
  • The Hede Nielsen Foundation
  • Aase and Ejner Danielsen foundation
  • ML Jørgensen and Gunnar Hansen Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
childhood cancer, peer support, social marginalization, friendship, social rehabilitation, social resources, peer motivation, school-aged children, chronic disease
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Motivation, Neoplasms, Peer Group, Prospective Studies, Schools, Social Environment, Students, Friends

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review