Holistic Needs for Patients with Cancer and Suggested Nursing Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cancer is a significant concern for public health for millions of people worldwide and it claims thousands of lives. Meeting the needs of cancer survivors in the long term has become a significant concern for public health. This study aimed to assess holistic needs for patient with cancer and suggest nursing guidelines. Descriptive design was used on hundred patients with cancer admitted to viruses' outpatient unit, in Zagazig University Hospital before receiving chemotherapy. Patient Interview Questionnaire was used to assess patient condition including sociodemographic data, Patient knowledge about cancer, Needs of patient with cancer by scale based on quality of life. Results: Half of the studied patients had unsatisfactory knowledge about cancer while nearly three-quarters of the studied patients had high needs, the highest needs was for Psychological needs more than four-fifths of the studied sample followed by physical need about three quarter, near three quarter for spiritual needs, and above three fifth for socio-economic needs. Conclusion: There was a statistical significant relation between patients' level of knowledge, total needs and their socio demographic characteristics. In addition there was statistical significant relation between patients' total needs and their level of knowledge. Recommendation: conducting proposed protocol of patient's holistic needs management that's evidenced – based should be implemented and evaluated.
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".