MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400688605 · doi:10.1111/jan.16328

Health promotion nursing interventions for female breast cancer survivors: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4400688605 on OpenAlexaff
Pegah Torabi, Maud‐Christine Chouinard, Marie‐Maxim Sévigny, Karine Bilodeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth promotionNursingMedicineNursing Interventions ClassificationHealth careInclusion (mineral)Public healthFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Map the existing health promotion nursing interventions for female breast cancer survivors (BCS) to describe the approaches used and the characteristics of these interventions in the available studies. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCE: Five electronic databases were systematically searched for eligible studies, published between 2002 and 2022. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology, two reviewers independently used Covidence to screen the title, abstract and full text of evidence against the inclusion criteria and extracted data using an extraction table. The PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guided the reporting. No patient or public contribution was necessary. RESULTS: This review included 22 studies on nursing health promotion interventions for BCSs, primarily conducted in specialized care centres. In 20 of 22 studies, nurses employed the educational approach to promote the health of BCSs. Many interventions aimed to support survivors in adopting healthy lifestyles, improving their sexual health, promoting overall well-being and addressing their individual needs by equipping them with self-care skills. Nurses utilized self-monitoring, health education materials and technologies to support survivors' health. CONCLUSION: The review concludes that the nurse used various approaches and interventions with different characteristics to improve the health of BCSs. This review also emphasizes that a limited number of determinants of health have been considered by nurses in the development of health promotion interventions. IMPACT: The review highlights the important role that nurses can play in enhancing the health of female BCSs after cancer treatments. This review can guide future research for developing nursing health promotion interventions in primary care settings for female BCSs. Additionally, the review offers insights to support future research, education and training on diverse approaches and characteristics that nurses can utilize to establish interventions that enhance the health of female BCSs.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207