Practical innovation: Advanced practice nurses in cancer care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to gather emerging practice evidence, through consultation with Advance Practice Nurses (APN), to fill the evidence gaps in the published guidelines, Effective Use of Advanced Practice Nurses in the Delivery of Adult Cancer Services in Ontario, and to provide a set of expert panel recommendations to build a research agenda to promote the collection and publication of Level 1 and 2 evidence. METHOD: A three-step RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) modified Delphi process was used to solicit expert opinion on the use of APNs in adult cancer care in Ontario. RESULTS: Thirty-four (34) case examples of APN use were gathered. The modified Delphi process concluded with the endorsement of 30 APN role statements that were used to develop nine (9) additional recommendations regarding the use of APNs in the delivery of adult cancer care. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from this study provide direction for future research to close the current evidence gap regarding the role of APNs in cancer care delivery in Canada.
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 | 0.032 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".