A study into nurses' awareness of the National Service Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to demonstrate nurses' awareness of the National Service Frameworks (NSFs), which began in 1999, and are an important part of the Government's modernization strategy for the NHS. A questionnaire was sent, in 2002, to a systematic random sample of 228 nurses. The results were analysed for descriptive and comparative statistics using the computer software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and the nurses questioned showed a low to moderate level of awareness. A quarter of nurses had not heard of the NSFs before receiving the questionnaire, and of those who had, only half had tried to find out more information. Despite high readership of nursing journals and good internet use, nurses did not think it was their responsibility to use such sources to find out about the NSFs, considering rather that management should provide study days and workplace teaching. While this outlook may be at odds with the concepts of lifelong learning and professional responsibilities as outlined by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, it is suggested that formal mechanisms of dissemination of reforms need to be implemented if nurses are to participate fully in them.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".