Exploring the experience of <scp>C</scp>anadian registered psychiatric nurses: a phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary This study was undertaken to explore the experience of registered psychiatric nurses in the province of Manitoba, Canada. Results of this study revealed six predominant themes including how psychiatric nursing is perceived by the public and allied professionals, the aggressive behaviour and management of patients, the involvement of family members regarding the care of their loved ones, the relationship between physicians and psychiatric nurses, the sense of responsibility and worry associated with psychiatric nursing, and the gradual shift in educational standards and movement towards traditional medical intervention. Results from this study can benefit patients, psychiatric nurses, and psychiatric nurse educators. Abstract This paper describes a phenomenological study that was conducted in 2012 and investigated the experiences of registered psychiatric nurses working in the province of Manitoba. Ten registered psychiatric nurses participated in semistructured, audio‐recorded interviews, during which they described their experiences, yielding written protocols that were thematically analysed. Results from this study revealed six predominant themes that included (1) perception of psychiatric nursing; (2) patient aggression; (3) patient family involvement; (4) nurse–doctor relationship; (5) responsibility and worry; and (6) shift in practice and educational standards. The results of this study can assist in better understanding registered psychiatric nursing practice, inform educational programmes, and spawn future research.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".