MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405817083 · doi:10.4103/mjbl.mjbl_646_23

Nurses’ Perspectives of the Supportive Care Needs of Men with Prostate Cancer

2024· article· en· W4405817083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roula Mohammad Abboud, Nassim Samir Saker, Mohammad Mahdi Saeed Sahi, Hussein Kadhim Hussein, Alaa Hamza Hermis

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Journal of Babylon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstateGynecologyCancerNursingGeneral surgeryFamily medicineOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer affecting men. Perceptions of oncology nurses regarding educational needs would assist in gaining more understanding of survivor needs and ultimately provide better quality care to individuals who have completed cancer treatment. Objectives: To investigate the nurses’ point of view about the priority and the degree of importance of educational needs for prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: The current study used a descriptive design and was conducted at the chemotherapy and radiology center of Tishreen University Hospital in Lattakia City, Syria during 2020–2021. The study comprised 50 nurses in the chemotherapy department. Tools used in the study were adopted from the Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire Cancer by the researchers to achieve the purpose of the study. Results: The majority of studied nurses (82%) aged between 30 and 40 years old, also about half of nurses (46%) were single, two third of nurses (66%) have preparatory degree, the highest ratio of nurses (60%) have from 1 to 5 years of experience, whereas the most of nurses (70%) have from 6 to 10 years of experience in general nursing; finally most of the nurses (78%) did not have any oncology training session. The results also found that there were a statistically significant differences in oncology nursing opinion according to their age, educational level, and years of experience in oncology nursing, whereas there were no statistically significant differences according to the marital status, years of nursing experience in general and training sessions. Conclusion: All the information needed by prostate cancer patients is of low importance from the studied nurses’ point of view except the psychological needs with moderate importance. There is a high statistically significant difference in oncology nursing opinion according to the age, educational level, and years of experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Journal of BabylonSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207