Nursing Presence in Pediatric Oncology: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nursing presence creates meaningful and trusting relationships that facilitate healing for the patient and enhances the nurse's clinical experience. Although nursing presence has been linked to better health outcomes especially in chronic illnesses and end-of-life, little is known about its contribution in pediatric oncology. Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how nursing presence is understood and expressed in pediatric oncology. Methods: Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework was used to guide the review, with Clarke and Braun’s (2013) thematic analysis process used for collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Key search terms were developed for searches between January 1999 and July 2020 in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Psych INFO databases. Initially, 4,357 studies were identified with a final sample of nine articles meeting specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Gray literature retrieved from the search was used to inform the review. Findings: Most notably, there is a limited understanding of nursing presence in pediatric oncology setting. However, findings revealed five themes that can be identified with nursing presence: Being With or Being There, Therapeutic Relationships, Communication, Family-centered Approach, and Perceived Outcomes of Nursing Presence. Nurses in pediatric oncology are in an ideal position to provide nursing presence in order to improve the quality of care in pediatric oncology settings. Discussion: There is a need to establish a comprehensive evidence-based understanding of the construct of nursing presence in pediatric oncology that health care providers can utilize to enhance their clinical practice and health research.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".