Impact of a Pivot Nurse in Oncology on Patients With Lung or Breast Cancer: Symptom Distress, Fatigue, Quality of Life, and Use of Healthcare Resources
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact on continuity of nursing care delivered by a pivot nurse in oncology to improve symptom relief and outcomes for patients with lung or breast cancer. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 93) with care by a pivot nurse in oncology and usual care by clinic nurses or to a control group (n = 97) with usual care only. SETTING: Three outpatient ambulatory oncology clinics in a large university health center in Quebec, Canada. SAMPLE: 113 patients with lung cancer and 77 patients with breast cancer. METHODS: Participants in both groups completed the Symptom Distress Scale, Brief Fatigue Inventory, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-General version 4 at eight intervals over six months. Healthcare usage was evaluated through a review of hospital records. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Symptom distress, fatigue level, quality of life, and healthcare usage. FINDINGS: Researchers found no significant differences in symptom distress, fatigue, quality of life, and healthcare usage between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The new nursing role did not have an impact on the patient outcomes under study. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Experienced nurses with specialized knowledge of oncology symptom assessment and management may reduce the symptom burden experienced by ambulatory patients with breast or lung cancer during active treatment.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it