Safe Handling of Oral Chemotherapeutic Agents Among Nurses in Oncology Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Several concerns have been raised in the literature regarding nurses’ awareness of the safe handling of oral chemotherapeutic agents (OACAs). This research aims to assess such awareness among nurses working in oncology units. Methods: The study utilised a cross-sectional descriptive design, and was conducted between July 2022 and March 2023. Data were collected via a structured questionnaire from a previous study, with 34 variables grouped into four categories. Results: Our study indicated that most nurses knew how to safely handle chemotherapeutic drugs. Correct responses per category were: storage, 77.7%; handling, 65.86%; disposal of contaminated materials, 94.45%; and education and training, 89.68%. Nurses with > 10 years’ experience had higher scores than those with < 10 years; the difference was significant (p = 0.039). Likewise, there was a significant difference (p = 0.002) in mean scores between nurses who had received training on the safe handling of chemotherapeutic drugs (92.1 ± 20) and those who had not (76.8 ± 30.7). Conclusion: The study indicates that years of experience and roles at work have a significant impact on nurses’ knowledge about the storage of chemotherapeutic drugs. Overall, nurses with more experience and training scored significantly higher, suggesting that training is an effective way to improve knowledge and skills in this area. Furthermore, participation in this study might influence might influence nurses’ judgments when handling oral chemotherapeutic drugs and caring for cancer patients.
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".