Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In an effort to optimize healthcare, people (that is, patients, providers, and funders) have started to increasingly scrutinize nurses' practices, whether these relate to assessments, plans of care, interventions, or evaluations.What people want to know is, what is the utility, efficacy, and effectiveness of the services being recommended, delivered, and paid for?Do these interventions induce their intended outcomes, or do they cause more harm than good?This trend, which is commonly known as evidence-based practice, has challenged all healthcare practices.There are no sacred practices seemingly beyond the apparently critical gaze of evidence-based practice.From this lens, everything should be subject to critique and critical review.While the foregoing aim of evaluating everything seems ideal, it is not as comprehensive in practice.What is lost in this new movement is the actual practice of critical appraisal.In decrying the previous approach of providing care based on anecdotal evidence, personal opinion, and historical practice trends, we have failed to maintain the foundational premise of critical reflection: to question and challenge everything.Indeed, the basic tenets are simple: question that which we are told is best; ask how and why one item has been established as ideal; and challenge the prevailing norms, so as to fulfill our professional obligations of providing patient care that achieves patients' goals.Such critical thinking, which should be a central aspect of evidence-based practice, however, is often applied to everything but evidence-based practice itself.Reflecting on if, how, when, and in what ways evidence-based practice helps, including a review of how evidence-based practice is implemented, is required.What appears to have happened is that, in opposition to a previous mindset, wherein initiatives were simply applied, we now seem to be unable to provide care until the so-called right type of evidence emerges.We have become dangerously immobilized in the absence of evidence.But does this make sense?Is this actually a change in how we care for patients?It seems to be little more than the replacement of one dogma with another.Instead of practicing without evidence (what I suggest is the previous modus operandi), we now simply do nothing when there is no evidence (the current approach).How is this different from before though?Does this new approach actually improve patient care, or does it simply create a new form of practice that is equally devoid of critically thinking?.Now, it simply seems that we have becoming unable, or at least increasingly reluctant, to address inequities and suffering due to a paucity of allegedly Éditorial/
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,069 | 0,047 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».