MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wise women: mentoring as relational learning in perinatal nursing practice

2009· article· en· W1998165010 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Annette Ryan, Lisa Goldberg, Joan Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Nova ScotiaNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersIWK Health Centre
KeywordsNursingPsychologyNursing practiceObstetric nursingMEDLINEMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The focus of this paper is on one of four themes from a study exploring mentoring relationships between nurses in the intrapartum setting. The theme, relational learning, highlights how perinatal nurses engage with each other and engage with birthing women on a journey of learning in perinatal nursing practice. BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored the contextual, lived experiences of informal mentoring relationships within nursing, particularly within perinatal nursing. DESIGN: A qualitative feminist phenomenological study that considered a gender-centred, embodied exploration of human lived experiences was conducted. METHOD: Five registered nurses practicing on a tertiary level labour and delivery unit in eastern Canada were purposefully recruited. Data were collected by phenomenological interviews, practice observations in the clinical setting and reflective journaling. RESULTS: Four themes emerged through thematic analysis and researcher interpretation: the meaning of nurse-to-nurse mentoring, mentoring as relational learning, mentoring as embodied learning and a contextual understanding of nurse-to-nurse mentoring. Relational learning came to be understood through feminist phenomenological analysis, which revealed that expert perinatal nursing knowledge develops within positive mentoring relationships between perinatal nurses practicing with birthing women. This learning extends beyond tasks to a holistic understanding of clinical situations within specific health and social contexts. The mentor models positive perinatal nursing practices and creates a sense of enthusiasm that harnesses the raw passion new nurses often have for practice. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study aim to promote the understanding of the importance of relational, experiential learning for perinatal nurses' professional development. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results from this study will encourage nurses and nurse leaders to support mentoring by providing adequate resources and positive feedback for mentoring relationships. This will foster and sustain expert nurses to support novice nurses in perinatal practice. The findings also offer insight for perinatal practices beyond nursing, including midwifery.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207