Screening for distress: Responding is a critical function for oncology nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of routine screening for distress in cancer populations has been gaining worldwide support over the past several years with the conceptualization of distress as the sixth vital sign. Across Canada, experience with screening for distress is growing, as cancer facilities implement screening programs. Early learning from these efforts has emphasized the need for a programmatic approach and the importance of oncology nurses in screening and providing the initial response to distress. To date, little has been written from the nursing perspective about the oncology nursing role in a program screening for distress and responding to the identified patient concerns. This article describes the current thinking about distress; explores how screening for and responding to distress is integral to oncology nursing practice; and shares the early learning and experiences of cancer nurses in implementing screening for distress initiatives.
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 | 0.018 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".