Experience of oncology nurses with cancer survivors during transition from acute oncology treatment to primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cancer care for Canadian cancer survivors remains fragmented. Little is known about the experience of Canadian oncology nurses providing cancer care for cancer survivors, as they transition from acute treatment to primary care. Objectives: This study aimed to (1) explore the experience of oncology nurses dealing with fragmented cancer care for cancer survivors in transition to survivorship; (2) identify oncology nurses' perspectives about what promotes or inhibits their delivery of quality cancer care; and (3) obtain their suggestions to improve cancer care. Design: This study used a phenomenological design to explore the experience of oncology nurses in caring for cancer survivors during transition to survivorship and examine how the nurse participants describe their experience. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data and an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach was used to develop themes from the data. Results: Three oncology nurses participated in this study. The following five themes emerged: (1) Under personal transition: nursing assessment, symptoms management, patient education, resources offered, refusing label of cancer survivors, promoting adjustment to a new normal life, promoting return to work, and recognizing meaning of survivorship; (2) Under cancer survivor's care transition: promoting self-care management, communication, and maximal recovery of body functions; (3) Under nurse's positive experience promoting delivery of quality cancer care: caring for cancer survivors, experience and knowledge, and advocate for cancer survivors; (4) Under barriers that negatively affected delivery of cancer care: low socioeconomic status (especially low income), cultures and languages barriers, and limited time providing nursing care; and (5) Suggestions to improve cancer care: establishing a new position - primary nurse, increasing the number of healthcare professionals, and improving knowledge, skills, and experience. Conclusion: Oncology nurses' knowledge and experience provide a good foundation for quality cancer care and contribute to the health and wellbeing of cancer survivors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".