Lessons from professional nursing associations' policy advocacy responses to the <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 pandemic: An interpretive description
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Professional nursing associations across jurisdictions engaged in significant policy advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic to support nurses, the public and health systems. While professional nursing associations have a long history of engaging in policy advocacy, scholars have rarely critically examined this important function. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to examine how professional nursing associations engage in the process of policy advocacy and (b) to develop knowledge specific to policy advocacy in the context of a global pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted using interpretive description. A total of eight individuals from four professional nursing associations (two local, one national and one international) participated. Data sources included semi-structured interviews conducted between October 2021 and December 2021 and internal and external documents produced by organizations. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Within-case analysis was conducted prior to cross-case comparisons. FINDINGS: Six key themes were developed to illustrate the lessons learned from these organizations including their organization's role in supporting a wide audience (professional nursing associations as a compass); the scope of their policy priorities (bridging the gaps between issues and solutions), the breadth of their advocacy strategies (top down, bottom up and everything in between), the factors influencing their decision-making (looking in and looking out), their evaluation practices (focus on contribution, not attribution) and the importance of capitalizing on windows of opportunity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the nature of policy advocacy carried out by professional nursing associations. IMPACT: The findings suggest the need for those leading this important function to think critically about their role in supporting a wide range of audiences, the breadth and depth of their policy priorities and advocacy strategies, the factors that influence their decision-making, and the ways in which their policy advocacy work can be evaluated to move towards greater influence and impact.
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 | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 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 ».