MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An empirical test of the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model

2002· article· en· W1974183321 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsLakeridge HealthHamilton Health SciencesHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingStructural equation modelingNursing Outcomes ClassificationNursing careAuditMedicineTest (biology)Surgical nursingPrimary nursingAffect (linguistics)PsychologyNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study investigated the propositions depicted in the Nursing Role Effectiveness Model, in which nurse and patient structural variables were expected to influence nurses' role performance, which, in turn was expected to affect patient outcome achievement. RATIONALE/BACKGROUND: Increasingly, nurses are expected to demonstrate their contribution to patient outcome achievement as a basis for evaluating practice and for monitoring improvements in practice. A model was developed that describes nursing practice in relationship to the roles nurses assume in health care, and links patient and system outcomes to nurses' role functions (Nursing Economics 1998: 16, 58-64, 87). RESEARCH METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used to collect data on the structure, process, and outcome variables. Data were collected through structured questionnaires and chart audit, involving a total of 372 patients and 254 nurses from 26 general medical-surgical units in a tertiary care hospital. Patient structural variables included medical diagnosis, age, gender and education. Nurse structural variables included educational preparation and length of hospital experience. The unit structural variables included the adequacy of time to provide care, autonomy, and role tension. The quality of nurses' independent role performance was assessed by collecting data from patients on their perception of the quality of nursing care. Nurses' interdependent role performance was assessed by collecting data from nurses on the quality of nurse communication and co-ordination of care. Patient outcomes were assessed through self-report and consisted of the patients' therapeutic self-care ability, functional status, and mood disturbance at the time of hospital discharge. Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypothesized relationships among the structural, process, and outcome variables. RESULTS: Patients viewed nurses' independent role performance more effective on units where nurses reported less autonomy but more time to provide care. The quality of nurse communication was higher on units where nurses had higher education, more autonomy, less hospital experience, and lower role tension. However, the co-ordination of care was more effective on units where nurses had higher education, greater hospital experience, less autonomy and role tension. The three role performance variables were associated with patients' therapeutic self-care ability at hospital discharge. Nurses' independent role performance was associated with better patient functional status and less mood disturbance at hospital discharge. The role performance variables fully mediated the effect of the structural variables on patient outcomes, lending support for the proposition that nurses' role performance explains the relationship between structural variables, such as nurse education and autonomy, and patient outcome achievement. DISCUSSION: The Nursing Role Effectiveness Model provides a well-defined conceptual framework to guide the evaluation of outcomes of nursing care. For the most part the hypothesized relationships among the variables were supported. However, further work is needed to develop an understanding of how nurses engage in their co-ordinating role functions and how we can measures these role activities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.333 · 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