Nurses and English primary care groups: their experiences and perceived influence on policy development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS OF THE STUDY: To investigate the experiences and perceived influence of nurses serving on English primary care group boards. BACKGROUND: The development of the nursing workforce and nursing services in primary care have been piecemeal and nurses have not always contributed to policy development. The recent establishment of primary care groups (PCGs) in the United Kingdom (UK) potentially offers nurses the opportunity to take a concerted and strategic role in developing professional roles and planning service developments. RESEARCH METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study of a 15% random sample of English primary care groups, nurse board members were surveyed in the winter of 1999. One hundred and forty-four nurses were invited to return self-completion questionnaires. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 106 of those invited to participate (73%). Respondents reported that combining their usual work with their role in the PCG was frequently difficult. Only 26% perceived that they had been well prepared for their new role. Compared with other board members [for example, general practitioners (GPs)], nurses perceived that their own influence was limited, with only a quarter rating the influence of nurses on decision-making as great. Most of the sample were feeding back information to other primary care and community nurses working in the locality and 52% rated communication with this wider constituency as good or better. Nurse board members were enthusiastic about their role and optimistic about the positive future impact of PCGs on health. CONCLUSIONS: PCGs are still at a relatively early stage in their development. It is still too early to assess their impact on nurses working in primary care and community settings. Board membership offers nurses a voice in local health policy development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».