Articulating nurse practitioner practice using King's theory of goal attainment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To further understand the interactions between nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients, King's nursing theory of goal attainment was applied as the conceptual framework to describe the interactions between NPs and patients in the primary care setting. DATA SOURCES: Six dyads of NPs and their patients were video- and audio-taped over three consecutive clinic visits. For the purposes of this arm of the study, the audio-taped interactions were transcribed and then coded using King's concepts in her theory of goal attainment. CONCLUSIONS: King's theory was applicable to describe NP practice. King's concepts and processes of nurse-patient interactions, such as disturbances, mutual goal setting, and transactions, were observed in NP-patient interactions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Disturbances during clinical encounters were essential in the progression toward goal attainment. Elements, such as social exchange, symptom reporting, role explanation, and information around clinical processes facilitated relationship building. NPs as practitioners need to be reflective of their own practice, embrace disturbances in the clinical encounter, and attend to these as opportunities for mutual goal setting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".