Telephone follow-up with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetive: Identify and synthesize the scientific evidence on telephone follow-up by a nurse with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. P (Population) – Oncology nurse. C (Concept) – Telephone follow-up of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. C (Context) – Chemotherapy outpatient unit. The established research question was: What scientific evidence, in the context of outpatient antineoplastic chemotherapy, is available for telephone monitoring of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies performed by nurses? Inclusion criteria: research will be included; published in full in english, spanish and portuguese; which deal with telephone follow-up by a nurse with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, with a time limit, starting in 2013 (The justification of the time frame is based on the National Policy for the Prevention and Control of Cancer in the Health Care Network of People with Chronic Diseases within the scope of the Unified Health System). Exclusion criteria: the following will be excluded: editorials, experience reports, theoretical essays, a single case study and studies that address telephone monitoring by non-nurse health professionals.). Data collect • Search for similar scoping reviews A preliminary search was carried out in the databases: CINAHL, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences (LILACS), SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane library. Therefore, the final search strategy defined was: ("Telemedicine"[Mesh] OR "Telenursing"[Mesh] OR "Telephone"[Mesh] OR "Telephone Consultation” (Iowa NIC) OR “Telehealth"[Mesh]) AND ("Oncology Nursing"[Mesh] OR “Nursing"[Mesh]) AND ("Anus Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR "Cecal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR "Colonic Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR "Digestive System Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR "Duodenal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR "Gastrointestinal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR “Ileal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR “Intestinal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR “Jejunal Neoplasms"[Mesh] OR “Sigmoid Neoplasms "[Mesh] OR “Stomach Neoplasms "[Mesh] OR “Esophageal Neoplasms "[Mesh] OR “Colorectal Neoplasms"[Mesh]). Definition of search strategies and databases Databases: 1. PubMed 2. CINAHL 3. Web of Science 4. Scopus 5. LILACS Cochrane Gray literature search: Portal de Teses e Dissertações da CAPES DART-Europe E-Theses Portal Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS) Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) National ETD Portal Theses Canada Portal de Tesis Latino americanas World Cat Dissertations and Theses The title and summary of all identified studies will be evaluated, based on the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those selected will be evaluated in full for later data extraction. The following data will be extracted from a spreadsheet built in Microsoft Excel 2010. The data will be presented in a descriptive manner (n and%) and relevant literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".