MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4404560052 · doi:10.22605/rrh9106

A scoping review of rural mental health and substance use nursing

2024· review· en· W4404560052 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Stuart Thomas, Nelly D. Oelke, Dennis Jasper, Michelle Pavloff, Elizabeth Keys

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Établissements canadiensUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie UniversitySaskatchewan PolytechnicUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusInterior Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubstance useMental healthNursingMedicinePsychologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Globally, nearly 50% of the population live in rural areas, while just 36% of nurses serve in these locations. Rural nurses face distinct challenges such as limited resources and geographical isolation, and often work with an expanded scope of practice that includes mental health and substance use (MHSU) care. The extent to which rural nurses engage in MHSU care, care barriers, and facilitators has not been previously well described. Thus, this scoping review explored the international research on rural MHSU nursing. The aim was to synthesize the rural MHSU nursing evidence and consider it in relation to Knowing the Rural Community: A Framework for Nursing Practice in Rural and Remote Canada. The research question for this review was, 'What is known about rural nursing related to mental health and/or substance use considerations?' METHODS: A scoping review approach was used to guide a systematic exploration of the literature. CINAHL, Medline, and PsycINFO databases were searched for international qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods scholarly articles with rural MHSU nursing considerations, with no date limiters. Extracted data were mapped to the framework's categories: rural people, community, rural context, and larger society. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were selected for this critical review of the literature, with most of the articles from Australia (n=15), the US (n=8), Canada (n=7), and South Africa (n=5), and representing rural nurses who worked in hospital (n=16), primary care (n=11), community mental health (n=7), and emergency department (n=6) practice settings. Rural MHSU nursing was described as a generalist and multifaceted role, with challenges such as workplace violence, practice setting and community isolation, and resource inadequacies. Results also indicated that rural MHSU nursing is influenced by a nurse's preparedness for their role, with a lack of preparedness complicated by multilayered resource deficits. Social determinants of health, mental health stigma, and health inequities also affected rural MHSU nursing practice. Despite facing significant barriers, rural nurses demonstrated resilience and commitment to providing quality MHSU care for their communities. DISCUSSION: Overall, there was congruence between the included studies and the framework. The framework provided a comprehensive foundation for this scoping review. However, based on the findings of this scoping review, minor amendments to the framework are recommended, such as including the rural nurse as an explicit part of the framework. Further, a rural-centric approach that is local, context-sensitive, and developed in collaboration with rural people, was identified as crucial for addressing the unique challenges faced by rural MHSU nurses and their communities. Future rural research should address nursing shortages, practice support, and under-researched areas such as child and youth MHSU nursing and Indigenous health. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlighted some of the challenges rural MHSU nurses encounter and provided valuable insights into the complexities of rural MHSU nursing internationally. By using the framework to organize and synthesize the literature, this study contributed to a deeper understanding of the role of rural nurses in addressing MHSU challenges and the context in which rural MHSU nursing care may be situated.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,492
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,126
Tête enseignante GPT0,524
Écart entre enseignants0,398 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRural and Remote HealthMême sujetGlobal Health Workforce IssuesTravaux en français237 207