MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963566439 · doi:10.5172/conu.2013.44.1.32

School based youth health nurses and a true health promotion approach: The Ottawa what?

2013· article· en· W1963566439 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yi-erh Su, Marguerite C. Sendall, Mary Louise Fleming, John Lidstone

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Nurse · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionNursingOccupational health nursingMedicineCharterHealth educationMedical educationPublic healthPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The purpose of this research is to examine School Based Youth Health Nurses (SBYHN) experience of a true health promotion approach. BACKGROUND: The School Based Youth Health Nurse Program is a state-wide school nursing initiative in Queensland, Australia. The programme employs more than 120 fulltime and fractional school nurses who provide health services in state high schools. The role incorporates two primary components: individual health consultations and health promotion strategies. DESIGN/METHODS: This study is a retrospective inquiry generated from a larger qualitative research project about the experience of school based youth health nursing. The original methodology was phenomenography. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 school nurses recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. This study accesses a specific set of raw data about SBYHN experience of a true health promotion approach. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) is used as a framework for deductive analysis. RESULTS: The findings indicate school nurses have neither an adverse or affirmative conceptual experience of a true health promotion approach and an adverse operational experience of a true health promotion approach based on the action areas of the Ottawa Charter. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this research are important because they challenge the notion that school nurses are the most appropriate health professionals to undertake a true health promotion approach. If school nurses are the most appropriate health professionals to do a true health promotion approach, there are implications for recruitment and training and qualifications. If school nurses are not, who are the most appropriate health professionals to do school health promotion? IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings can be applied to other models of school nursing in Australia which emphasises a true health promotion approach because they relate specifically to school nurses' experience of a true health promotion approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary NurseSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207