Measuring Nurse Knowledge, Attitudes, and Skills in Phase 1 Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phase 1 clinical trials are the initial phase in advancing cancer treatment and testing a new drug for the first time in humans. No studies have investigated combined nurse knowledge, attitudes, and skills when administering phase 1 drugs. OBJECTIVES: This study examined oncology nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and skills; communication; and workflows regarding safe administration of phase 1 drugs. METHODS: A team at a large cancer organization in the southwestern United States conducted an exploratory, cross-sectional survey. The sample included acute and ambulatory care nurses who administer investigational drugs and clinical research nurses who oversee clinical trials. FINDINGS: Nurses scored highest in knowing the goal of a phase 1 drug and lowest in knowing which phase of investigational drug they were administering. For attitudes, confidence in administering and perceived safety when administering were the lowest mean scores. More than half had administered a phase 1 drug in the past five years. More oncology nursing experience correlated with understanding the nurse's role and negatively correlated with fear. About half of the nurses identified challenges in clinical trials workflows.
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 | 0.139 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".