Growth and development of oncology nursing in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The specialty of oncology nursing has been evolving in North America for nearly a century, keeping pace with the rapid and dynamic developments in cancer care. This narrative review outlines the history and development of oncology nursing in North America with a focus on the United States and Canada. The review highlights the important contributions that specialized oncology nurses have made to the care of people affected by cancer from time of diagnosis through treatment, follow-up and survivorship care, as well as palliative, end-of-life, and bereavement care. Keeping pace with the rapid evolution of cancer treatments throughout the last century, nursing roles have similarly evolved to meet the need for more specialized training and education. This paper discusses the growth of nursing roles, including advanced practice and navigator roles. In addition, the paper outlines the development of professional oncology nursing organizations and societies that have been established to help guide the profession with best practices, standards, and competencies. Finally, the paper discusses new challenges and opportunities regarding the access, availability, and delivery of cancer care that will shape future development of the specialty. Oncology nurses will continue to be integral to the provision of high-quality, comprehensive cancer care as clinicians, educators, researchers, and leaders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".