Nurses’ Caring Behaviors Toward Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy in Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurses' caring behaviors are central in the quality of care of patients undergoing sophisticated chemotherapy protocols. However, there is a scarcity of research regarding these behaviors in non-Anglo-Saxon countries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore caring behaviors that nurses perceive as important in caring for patients in Greece receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design, including a survey in 7 oncology wards in 3 cancer hospitals in Attica, Greece, and a subsequent qualitative focus group investigation. Caring behaviors were explored through the Caring Behavior Inventory 24 and content analysis of 3 focus group interviews. RESULTS: A sample of 72 nurses (response rate, 68.5%) were surveyed, and 18 nurses participated in the focus groups. "Knowledge/skills" (5 [SD, 0.7]) was the most important caring behaviors. No significant associations with nurses' characteristics were noted, except for higher scores in caring behaviors in participants who were married (P < .02). Six caring-related categories emerged from the qualitative analysis: "the concept of care," "respect," "nurse-patients' connection," "empathy," "fear of cancer," and "nurses' professional role." Moreover, they stressed barriers they faced in each category. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated quantitative and qualitative data concur that operational tasks are central in Greek nurses' caring behaviors. In addition, qualitative findings highlighted those skills equipping nurses to provide holistic individualized care in a hectic care environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Supporting nurses in attaining excellence in technical skills and in meaningfully engaging with patients receiving chemotherapy is essential in the realization of their caring role. These should be priorities for continuing education and practice improvement initiatives.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".