MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405962778 · doi:10.2196/66275

The Effect of Nurse Navigators in Digital Remote Monitoring in Cancer Care: Case Study Using Structural Equation Modeling

2024· article· en· W4405962778 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Minvielle, Joël Perez-Torrents, Israa Salma, Philippe Aegerter, Marie Ferrua, Charles Ferté, Henri Leleu, Delphine Mathivon, Claude Sicotte, Mario Di Palma, Florian Scotté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Internet Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut Gustave-RoussyAgence Régionale de Santé Île-de-FranceAgence Nationale de la RechercheAstraZeneca
KeywordsPreprintDigital healthMedicineHealth careTelemedicineNursingInternet privacyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of digital remote monitoring (DRM) is improving cancer care management. However, its effectiveness largely depends on the role of nurse navigators (NNs) within these systems to process data and lead action. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to fill gaps in our understanding of the role of NNs within a specific system, drawing on the Cancérologie parcours région Ile-de-France (CAPRI) DRM program applied to oncology patients. METHODS: The CAPRI DRM, targeting patients taking oral anticancer agents, combines digital interfaces with NN interventions. A phase 3 randomized controlled trial involving 559 patients assessed its safety and efficacy, with the primary end point being the relative dose intensity. This report focuses on patients in the CAPRI arm, evaluating the impact of NN interventions on outcomes such as toxicity, hospitalization, and emergency visits. Data on patient characteristics, NN interventions, and patient satisfaction surveys were analyzed using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: The study included 187 patients. Patient characteristics were significantly correlated with outcomes. Across all the models we used, the quality of NN interventions was consistently associated with higher patient satisfaction, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.332 (95% CI 0.154-0.510; P<.001) to 0.366 (95% CI 0.182-0.550; P<.001). The number of grade ≥3 toxicity events correlated positively with NN referrals to oncologists. Hospitalization length was positively related to NN referral (coefficient 0.102, 95% CI 0.051-0.153; P<.001) and inversely to NN advice (coefficient -0.045, 95% CI -0.096 to 0.006; P=.08). Emergency visits showed a negative correlation with NN actions (coefficient -0.478, 95% CI -0.923 to 0.033; P=.04) and a positive correlation with NN calls and referrals (coefficient 0.516, 95% CI 0.069-0.963; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the central role of NNs in making DRM effective. Despite the study's limitations, these results support the design of DRM as a hybrid model of automated digital tools and human support. Future research should explore the applicability of such a DRM model in various clinical settings to clarify the optimal association between automated systems and NN expertise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02828462; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02828462.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.409 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Internet ResearchSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207