The Teachable Moment After Cancer Diagnosis: Perceptions From Oncology Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine oncology nurses' perspectives of the receptiveness of survivors to receiving health behavior guidance, with secondary purposes to (a) explore other elements of oncology nurses' perceptions of the teachable moment and (b) examine differences in outcomes between American and Canadian nurses . DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: In- and outpatient oncology nursing departments in the United States and Canada. SAMPLE: 310 members of the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology (CANO/ACIO) and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) who currently care for patients . METHODS: Oncology nurses recruited through emails distributed through the CANO/ACIO and ONS Listservs completed online investigator-developed surveys. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Measures related to oncology nurses' perceptions of survivors' receptiveness to health behavior change counseling and the teachable moment (i.e., general receptiveness, perceived benefits, guidance and referral seeking, long- and short-term effectiveness, best time, and best resources). FINDINGS: Oncology nurses reported that survivors were receptive to receiving guidance on health behaviors, particularly during teachable moments after diagnosis and during treatment. They also perceived that a fairly low percentage of survivors asked for guidance about health behavior change; relatively few made improvements to their health behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors are reported to be interested in receiving guidance concerning health behavior change during key teachable moments. Oncology nurses may need to initiate conversations with survivors, offer education regarding the benefits of positive health behavior change, and provide ongoing support throughout the cancer trajectory. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses may use findings from the current study to guide their health behavior change counseling with survivors .
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".