Online communities of practice as a communication resource for community health nurses working with homeless persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study explored community health nurses' viewpoints about a Canadian online community of practice to support their practice with homeless or under-housed populations. BACKGROUND: Community health nurses who specifically work with homeless and marginally housed populations often report feelings of isolation and stress in managing complex problems in resource constraints. To strengthen intra-professional ties and enhance information access, an online community of practice was designed, implemented and evaluated by and for them. METHODS: Q-methodology was used. Sixty-six statements about the community of practice were collected from an online survey and focus groups, refined and reduced to 44 statements. In 2009, sixteen participants completed the Q-sort activity, rating each statement relative to the others. Scores for each participant were subjected to by-person factor analysis. RESULTS: Respondents fell into two groups -tacit knowledge warriors and tacit knowledge communicators. Warriors strongly believed that the community of practice could combat stigma associated with homelessness and promote awareness of homelessness issues, and valued its potential to validate and improve practice. Communicators would have used the community of practice more with increased discussion, facilitation and prompt responses. Generally, nurses viewed the community of practice as a place to share stories, validate practice and adapt best practices to their work context. CONCLUSIONS: Online communities of practice can be valuable to nurses in specialized fields with limited peer support and access to information resources. Tacit knowledge development is important to nurses working with homeless populations: this needs to be valued in conjunction with scientifically based knowledge.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".