The attitudes and activities of registered nurses towards health promotion and patient education in the emergency department
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) registered nurses (RNs) can help empower patients toward greater well-being through health promotion and patient education (HPPE). The ED is often an individual’s first and only access to the health care system, and is seen as an under-used setting for HPPE. To investigate RNs’ current attitudes and activites about educating patients in the ED, 223 Canadian ED RNs were surveyed using an adapted web-based questionnaire. The attitudes of ED RNs and their current HPPE activities were examined, as was the relationship between level of nursing education and these attitudes. Results showed that perceived importance is the major variable to explain HPPE. A relationship also exists between fewer barriers and feeling more comfortable providing HPPE to patients. More comfortable ED RNs are more likely to see the importance of HPPE. A relationship between perceived effectiveness of HPPE and the frequency of HPPE was found. In general, ED RNs believe that HPPE is important, but need to perceive that what they are providing is effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it