MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393359012 · doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2024.151627

Advanced Practice Nursing Titles and Roles in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4393359012 on OpenAlexaff
Maura Dowling, Eva Pape, Franziska Geese, Ann Van Hecke, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius, Consuelo Cerón, Paz Fernández‐Ortega, Francisca Márquez Doren, Ashleigh L. Ward, Cherith Semple, Tracy King, Manela Glarcher, Amanda Drury

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Oncology Nursing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineCLARITYScope of practicePsycINFONursingMEDLINEHealth careNursing researchInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0270.038
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.510 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Oncology NursingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207