An international perspective of advanced practice nursing regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no common understanding about the role of the advanced practice nurse across the globe and there is wide variation in the regulation of advanced practice nursing roles as well as their educational, licensing and credentialing requirements. AIM: The goal of this research was to examine the status of advanced practice nursing regulation globally. METHODS: An online survey link was emailed to National Nursing Associations and nursing health policy makers worldwide from June to December 2011. Questions focused on regulation, education, scope of practice, and barriers and opposition. Analysis included frequency statistics and descriptive data for survey questions and content analysis for two open-ended questions. LIMITATIONS: The survey was offered online and only in English. Therefore, technology and language barriers may have influenced the results. RESULTS: There is wide variation in educational requirements, regulation and scope of practice of advanced practice nurses. The barriers to advanced practice nursing are often linked to the status of legislation and credentialing in specific jurisdictions. CONCLUSION: A database of advanced practice nursing regulation and issues related to practice has the potential to become a valuable resource for individual countries. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: Each country has unique challenges related to health policy for advanced practice nursing roles. International nursing organizations have established programmes for regulation development; however, a stronger focus on monitoring regulation and more effective dissemination of information about available supports may have a bigger impact on the development and revision of health policy related to advanced practice nursing.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".