27 Years of retention outcomes for a nine-university primary health care nurse practitioner program in Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In this article we present 27 years of graduate retention outcomes for a nine-university consortium education program for Primary Health Care Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in Ontario, Canada. We assessed graduate retention in terms of whether graduates are or were practicing: 1) as an NP in Ontario; and 2) as an NP in the geographic region of Ontario where they graduated. It also looks at the geographic distribution of graduates retained as NPs in the province and measures the percentage of graduate NPs who were working in rural and remote areas. METHODS: The authors mined the Ontario nursing public registry to identify how many graduates were, or had been, registered as an NP in Ontario at any time between 1996 and December 2022. The authors used registry data to identify the agency where these NP graduates were practising in the province, and then used a google map interface to identify what percentage were still practising in the university region where they graduated. The Rurality Index of Ontario (RIO), a tool used to measure the level of rurality of Ontario communities in terms of health care access, was used to assess the percentage of NPs grads practising in rural and remote areas. RESULTS: 86.7% of NP graduates were registered as practising NPs in Ontario at the time of the study, or had been registered as practising at some time in the past, with a range of 84% to 91% across the universities. 48% to 79% of graduates registered as currently practising NPs in Ontario remained in the region where they had graduated. Geographic maps show a broad distribution of graduates both within university regions and across the province. 8.6% to 38.9% of graduates were working in rural or remote areas. Graduates from universities in northern Ontario had the highest percentage practising in rural and remote areas. Graduate NP rural practice rates in both northern and southern regions reflected the rural demographics of their regions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that the university consortium model supports NP recruitment and retention across the province, including in rural and remote areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
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) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».