Nurse Leaders' Experiences of Implementing Career Advancement Programs for Nurses in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Career advancement programs are currently implemented in many countries. In Iran, the first career advancement program was Nurses' Career Advancement Pathway. The purpose of this study was to explore nurse leaders' experiences about implementing the Nurses' Career Advancement Pathway program in Iran. METHODS: This exploratory qualitative study was conducted in 2013. Sixteen nurse managers were recruited from the teaching hospitals affiliated to Shahid Behesthi, Qazvin, and Iran Universities of Medical Sciences in Iran. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling method. Study data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The conventional content analysis approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: participants' experiences about implementing the Nurses' Career Advancement Pathway fell into three main categories including: a) the shortcomings of performance evaluation, b) greater emphasis on point accumulation, c) the advancement-latitude mismatch. CONCLUSION: The Nurses' Career Advancement pathway has several shortcomings regarding both its content and its implementation. Therefore, it is recommended to revise the program.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".