Advanced Practice Nursing Titles and Roles in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Advanced practice nursing roles in cancer care are diverse and exist across the cancer care continuum. However, the titles used and the scope of practice differ across countries. This diversity is likely to be misleading to patients and influence nurses' contribution to health care. An understanding of the current state of advanced practice nursing roles in cancer care internationally is needed to inform opportunities for future role development and enhance cancer nursing career pathways. METHODS: This scoping review included a systematic search of four databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete. Independent screening for papers meeting the review's inclusion criteria was undertaken using online screening software. Data extraction, coding, and mapping were undertaken in NVivo 12. RESULTS: Of the 13,409 records identified, 108 met the review's inclusion criteria. A variety of roles in cancer care settings were described. The United States and the United Kingdom had the most titles for advanced practice nursing roles. Tumor-specific roles were described and integrated into different phases of the cancer care continuum. Trends in continuing professional development for advanced practice nurses in cancer care included the rise in Fellowship programs in the United States and practice-based education in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in advanced practice nursing roles in cancer care allow regional and institutional variation to meet the needs of patient populations and health care system demands. However, a lack of clarity surrounding titles and roles results in confusion and underutilization of these nurses' highly specialized skill sets. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Incongruence in titles and scope of practice internationally will ultimately result in a merging of roles. There is a need for international agreement on education requirements for advanced practice nursing roles to promote career pathways.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".