MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CE: Original Research: Antineoplastic Drug Administration by Pregnant and Nonpregnant Nurses: An Exploration of the Use of Protective Gloves and Gowns

2018· article· en· W2949289706 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAJN American Journal of Nursing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAntineoplastic DrugsPregnancyDrug administrationOccupational exposureFood and drug administrationObstetricsFamily medicineNursingEmergency medicineInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Background: Many antineoplastic (chemotherapeutic) drugs are known or probable human carcinogens, and many have been shown to be reproductive toxicants in cancer patients. Evidence from occupational exposure studies suggests that health care workers who have long-term, low-level occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs have an increased risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. It's recommended that, at minimum, nurses who handle or administer such drugs should wear double gloves and a nonabsorbent gown to protect themselves. But it's unclear to what extent nurses do. PURPOSE: This study assessed glove and gown use by female pregnant and nonpregnant nurses who administer antineoplastic drugs in the United States and Canada. METHODS: We used data collected from more than 40,000 nurses participating in the Nurses' Health Study 3. The use of gloves and gowns and administration of antineoplastic drugs within the past month (among nonpregnant nurses) or within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy (among pregnant nurses) were self-reported via questionnaire. RESULTS: Administration of antineoplastic drugs at any time during their career was reported by 36% of nonpregnant nurses, including 27% who reported administering these drugs within the past month. Seven percent of pregnant nurses reported administering antineoplastic drugs during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Twelve percent of nonpregnant nurses and 9% of pregnant nurses indicated that they never wore gloves when administering antineoplastic drugs, and 42% of nonpregnant nurses and 38% of pregnant nurses reported never using a gown. The percentage of nonpregnant nurses who reported not wearing gloves varied by type of administration: 32% of those who administered antineoplastic drugs only as crushed pills never wore gloves, compared with 5% of those who administered such drugs only via infusion. CONCLUSION: Despite longstanding recommendations for the safe handling of antineoplastic and other hazardous drugs, many nurses-including those who are pregnant-reported not wearing protective gloves and gowns, which are considered the minimum protective equipment when administering such drugs. These findings underscore the need for further education and training to ensure that both employers and nurses understand the risks involved and know which precautionary measures will minimize such exposures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it