Influencing Nurses’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice in Cancer Pain Management
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
The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of an education intervention on nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practice in pain assessment and management over 3 months. The education intervention program was designed to change knowledge and influence the attitudes of registered nurses through a values clarification process using a conceptual framework based on a theory of reeducation. Participants in this descriptive, exploratory study were 53 nurses from six oncology units. Data were collected on their knowledge, attitudes, documentation practices, and analgesic choices in defined patient situations. The intervention was effective in changing the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of nurses in the study, but the effect was not maintained over time. Study findings suggest that further educational and organizational support is needed for effective practice in pain assessment and management. Further research should explore education programs that will maintain new knowledge over time. In addition, assessment of the effect that new knowledge has on the achievement of improved pain relief for patients should be explored in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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