Oncology nurses’ knowledge, perceptions, and perceived barriers related to discussing physical activity with patients with cancer, including older adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatments accelerate frailty in older adults with cancer (OACA). Exercise is safe and beneficial during and after treatment, yet many, including older adults, do not meet current exercise guidelines. The primary objective of this study was to understand oncology clinic nurses' knowledge and current practices regarding exercise discussion and promotion in patients with cancer, including in older patients. The secondary objectives were to: (1) explore barriers to initiating exercise discussion and promotion; and (2) explore the relationship between oncology nurses' exercise behavior, and their knowledge about existing guidelines and exercise promotion practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted via REDCap between February and May 2023 involving nurses who practice in outpatient oncology clinics. The survey was developed based on the expert consensus of the study team and was distributed through professional networks. Descriptive statistics and chi-square were used to analyze the collected data. RESULTS: Ninety-seven nurses participated. The majority were aged 41-50 years (38.1%) and 31-40 years (27.8%). Mean years of practice was 13.5 (0.5-45). Many nurses lacked formal training on exercise discussion with patients (57.8%), yet expressed interest in learning (91%). Most nurses (90%) agreed exercise benefits patients during treatment. The majority (75%) reported discussing or recommending exercise to patients with cancer, especially advising patients to stay active during and after treatment. Barriers to promoting exercise included limited clinic time (77.7%) and concerns about safety especially for OACA (72.2%). 37.6% of nurses reported engaging in moderate-intensity aerobic activity. 26.6% endorsed both being quite/very knowledgeable in discussing exercise guidelines with patients with cancer in general and 74.7% reported typically discussing exercise with patients with cancer in general. A statistically significant association was found between nurses' exercise promotion behaviour and perceived knowledge about exercise promotion (p = .01). CONCLUSION: Many nurses agree that exercise promotion is important and consider it part of their scope of practice to discuss exercise with patients with cancer. Although perceived knowledge regarding specific recommendations is generally low, nurses express interest in enhancing their knowledge and participating in diverse educational opportunities. Institutions should prioritize nurse education to support efforts in exercise promotion. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».