Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly nurses use various telehealth technologies to deliver health care services; however, there has been a lag in research and generation of empirical knowledge to support nursing practice in this expanding field. One challenge to generating knowledge is a gap in development of a comprehensive conceptual model or theoretical framework to illustrate relationships of concepts and phenomena inherent to adoption of a broad range of telehealth technologies to holistic nursing practice. A review of the literature revealed eight published conceptual models, theoretical frameworks, or similar entities applicable to nursing practice. Many of these models focus exclusively on use of telephones and four were generated from qualitative studies, but none comprehensively reflect complexities of bridging nursing process and elements of nursing practice into use of telehealth. The purpose of this article is to present a review of existing conceptual models and frameworks, discuss predominant themes and features of these models, and present a comprehensive conceptual model for telehealth nursing practice synthesized from this literature for consideration and further development. This conceptual model illustrates characteristics of, and relationships between, dimensions of telehealth practice to guide research and knowledge development in provision of holistic person-centered care delivery to individuals by nurses through telehealth technologies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".