Job satisfaction of advanced practice nurses in cancer care: A systematic review
Abstract
Purpose To identify, evaluate, and summarise evidence about advanced practice nurses' (APNs') job satisfaction in cancer care and its related factors.Methods A systematic review was performed including a narrative synthesis. Relevant evidence was identified from searches of three databases: Medline (PubMed), EBSCO (CINAHL), and PsychInfo. This systematic review searched for relevant articles published in English between 2000 and 2020. A structured process according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. The articles critical appraisal was based on the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative data synthesis was based on the extracted data (study characteristics, type of questionnaire, level of job satisfaction, related factors, and risk of bias).Results Just four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Job satisfaction of APNs providing cancer care in different care settings varied from low to high. Satisfying factors were personal, role, work, and institutional factors, whereas dissatisfies included the work setting and stress factors. Different measurement tools of the job satisfaction level were used, which might lead to non-comparable results.Conclusion The number of included studies and the findings from this systematic review present underinvestigated content according to the influence of patient group demands on APNs' job satisfaction. Evidence of patient group-specific factors relevant to APNs' job satisfaction could not be found. Further research is needed to address the influence of advanced nursing practice and patient group-related factors on job satisfaction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated challenges in cancer care, exposing vulnerabilities in healthcare infrastructure, workforce resilience, and digital readiness.
“The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated these challenges, exposing vulnerabilities in healthcare infrastructure, workforce resilience, and digital readiness [4].”
From A Scoping Review of Implemented Innovations in Cancer Care: Implications for Pan-Canadian Scaling (2026) · cites this paper as [4]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Geese, F., Zwakhalen, S., Lucien, B., & Hahn, S.
- Affiliations
- Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH)
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Geese, F.
- Venue
- European Journal of Oncology Nursing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02
- Volume
- 56
- Pages
- 102089
- ISSN
- 1462-3889 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4200607934
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Oncology Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
- ArODES (HES-SO (https://www.hes-so.ch/)) (submittedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
- Keywords
- job satisfaction, advanced practice nurses, cancer care, oncology nursing, occupational stress, work environment, determinants of job satisfaction, advanced practice nursing
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Job Satisfaction, Neoplasms, Workplace, Advanced Practice Nursing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review