Oncology nursing: Finding the balance in a changing health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care restructuring has resulted in significant changes in the workload and work environment for oncology nurses. While recent studies describe the impact of these changes on the general nursing workforce in several countries, there have been no published studies that have focused on worklife issues of Canadian oncology nurses. Therefore, a qualitative study was conducted to gain insight about how oncology nursing has changed over the past decade and how Canadian oncology nurses are managing these changes. Analysis of telephone interviews with 51 practising oncology nurses employed across Canada revealed three major themes. The first theme, "health care milieu", portrayed a picture of the cancer care environment and patient and professional changes that occurred over the past decade. The second theme, "conflicting demands", reflects how the elements of change and social forces have challenged professional oncology nursing practice. The third theme, "finding the way", describes the patterns of behaviour that nurses used to manage the changing health care environment and make meaning out of nurses' work in cancer care. Overall, the findings portray a picture of Canadian oncology nurses in "survival mode". They face many workplace challenges, but are able to keep going "for now" because they find ways to balance their responsibilities on a daily basis and because they know and believe that their specialized nursing knowledge and skills make a difference in patient care.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".