MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3032439563 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n9p37

Factors influencing nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward patients in chronic pain with opioid use disorder: A literature review

2020· review· en· W3032439563 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suha Abdulwahab, Vahe Kehyayan, Atef Al-Tawafsheh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLChronic painMedicineMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)Opioid use disorderHealth professionalsHealth carePsychiatryOpioidClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Chronic pain is a common symptom among patients worldwide. This issue leads health care professionals to manage patients’ chronic pain by using opioids. However, some patients tend to abuse these medications and develop opioid use disorder. The aim of the study was to identify and explore factors that influence nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward patients in chronic pain with opioid use disorder.Methods: A literature review was conducted. CINAHL, Medline, and PsychINFO databases were used to search for relevant articles. A total of 12 articles that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved.Results: This literature review showed several factors that influence nurses’ knowledge and attitudes. These factors were nurses’ education, role support, demographic factors, nurses’ experiences, and nurses’ beliefs and culture.Conclusions: The findings of this literature review will inform the development of an educational program to promote nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward patients in chronic pain with opioid use disorder.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment→French-language works237,207→