Ethics, culture and nursing practice in Ghana
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
OBJECTIVE: This paper describes how nurses in Ghana approach ethical problems. BACKGROUND: The International Council of Nurses' (ICN) Code for Nurses (2006) that serves as the model for professional code of ethics worldwide also acknowledges respect for healthy cultural values. Using the ICN's Code and universal ethical principles as a benchmark, a survey was conducted in 2009 to ascertain how nurses in Ghana respond to ethical and cultural issues in their practice. METHODS: The study was qualitative with 200 participant nurses. Data were obtained through anonymous self-administered questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Nurses' approaches to ethical problems in Ghana do not always meet expectations of the ICN Code for Nurses. They are also informed by local ethical practices related to the institutional setting and cultural environment in the country. While some cultural values complemented the ICN's Code and universal ethical principles, others conflicted with them. NURSING IMPLICATIONS: These data can assist nurses to provide culturally competent solutions to ethical dilemmas in their practice. Dynamic communication between nurses and patients/clients, intentional study of local cultural beliefs, and the development of ethics education will improve the conformity between universal ethical standards and local cultural values.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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