Self-reported awareness and attitude of cancer patients towards clinical nurse coordinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Lack of knowledge or poor perception towards the roles and responsibilities of clinical nurse coordinators among cancer patients might lead to a decrease in seeking their services. The objective of the study was to assess the knowledge, perception and attitude towards clinical nurse coordinators among cancer patients at a specialized cancer center in Jordan.Methods: This is a cross sectional study that was conducted by distributing a self-reported and anonymous survey to 240 cancer patients visiting the center. The survey questioned some patient characteristics such as sex, age, educational level, marital status, disease type and duration, type of therapy. The patients’ knowledge (12-statement), the perception (9-statement) regarding the actual roles/responsibilities of coordinators and the attitude (5-statement) towards seeking their services were measured. Responses on Likert scales were converted to percentage mean scores.Results: The overall percentage mean scores ± standard deviation of knowledge was 59 ± 17, perception towards clinical nurse coordinators (79 ± 14) and attitude towards seeking their services (69 ± 16). Linear regression showed that participants on chemotherapy had significantly better perception (higher scores) compared to participants on concurrent therapies (β = -3.91, p = .049). Participants with higher knowledge scores had better perception indicating a better comprehension about the clinical nurse coordinators’ roles, compared to those with lower knowledge percentage mean scores (β = 0.13, p = .019). Female patients had higher percentage mean score of attitude compared to male particpants (β = -3.77, p = .034). Better perception of Clinical nurse coordinators (CNCs) among cancer patients was significantly more associated with a more positive attitude towards seeking CNC services (β = 0.72, p < .001).Conclusions: Patients’ knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of nurse coordinators is associated with a better patients’ perception towards coordinators, which in return is associated with a more positive attitude towards seeking their services. Special consideration should be paid for patients on concurrent therapies who were more likely to have poorer perception towards clinical care coordinators compared to patients on chemotherapy. In addition, coordinators are expected to observe a more negative attitude towards seeking their services among male cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".