Nurses’ perception of integrating an innovative clinical hypnosis–derived intervention into outpatient chemotherapy treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Conversational hypnosis (CH) is known to optimize the management of symptoms resulting from antineoplastic treatment. However, the perception of nurses who have been called upon to integrate this practice into their care has yet to be documented. Goal: Describe how nurses perceive the integration of CH into chemotherapy-related care. Methods: Individual interviews and an iterative analysis were conducted with six nurses who had previous experience in CH in an outpatient oncology clinic. Findings: Six themes emerged: 1) the outpatient oncology clinic, a saturated care setting; 2) the key elements supporting the integration of CH into care; 3) an added value for patients; 4) a positive and rewarding experience for nurses; 5) collateral benefits; and 6) CH, an approach that warrants consideration amid the pandemic. Conclusion: These findings shed light on nurses' unique point of view regarding the challenges and benefits of integrating CH into oncology care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".