Integrative review of international nursing research in Mainland China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nursing research in Mainland China is divided into two parts: domestic nursing research, comprising all publications in Chinese; and international nursing research, comprising all publications in English. Domestic nursing research has been developing rapidly, demonstrated by the increase in new national or regional journals and publications. However, little is known about the extent of international research. AIMS: To outline the development of international nursing research publications in Mainland China and to provide suggestions for future development. METHOD: All of the papers were retrieved from PubMed. The key search phase was 'China or P.R.China NOT Hong Kong NOT Taiwan NOT Macao [AD]', with the limits of 'English', 'nursing journals' as well as the published date up to '2007/09/30'. FINDINGS: PubMed recorded 57 English papers that were originally conducted in Mainland China during the search period from 1989 to 30 September 2007. Thirty-seven of the total 57 (65%) publications were contributed by Beijing, Shanghai and Hubei. Forty-four of the 57 publications were conducted with collaborators from Hong Kong, the USA, the UK and Canada. Thirteen publications were funded by international societies, while only three were funded by the Chinese government. The research topics mainly focused on clinical research, nursing education and nursing management. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study indicates that international nursing research has been growing slowly in Mainland China along with provincial variations. The suggestions to improve nursing research include the reform of nursing education, the enhancement of the collaboration with the international societies and the establishment of research priorities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".