MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062249909 · doi:10.1177/1099800410369697

Women’s Health Across the Life Span: Contributions From Nursing Science

2010· editorial· en· W2062249909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret Heitkemper, Carol A. Landis, Nancy Fúgate Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Research For Nursing · 2010
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Research on Women's HealthBoard of Research in Nuclear Sciences
KeywordsReproductive healthCornerstoneNursing researchNursingOccupational health nursingHealth educationGerontologyPsychologyMedicinePublic healthEnvironmental healthHistoryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The demystification of women’s bodies was the cornerstone of the popular women’s health movement of the 1960s in the United States. Yet, despite early efforts to respond to this call for action, such as the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective’s publication of Our Bodies Ourselves (1973), the scientific community was slow to respond to women’s need for information about their unique physiology. The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH), for example, was not established until 1990. Nursing science was an exception to the scientific community’s early lack of attention to women’s health: By the time the OWHR published its first NIH Women’s Health Research Agenda (ORWH, 1991), women’s health research within nursing science was well established, reflecting an integrative view of women’s bodies coupled with a feminist critique of the sociopolitical milieu in which women experience health. Nursing’s contribution to women’s health science has continued to develop over the past 40 years, leading the way to a redefinition of women’s health that transcends merely reproductive health. A reconceptualization of women’s health services has evolved, often in collaboration with women, prompting the development of women’s health curricula for advanced practice nurses and significant contributions in nursing research to women’s health science across the life span (Taylor and Woods, 2001). Although often constrained by both the small amount of funding available and the limited interest of funders in topics related to women’s health, scholars in nursing have pushed knowledge of women’s health forward. In 1989, the National Institute of Nursing Research promoted women’s health research through funding the Center for Women’s Health Research. This center launched a number of interdisciplinary collaborations in areas important to symptom management and self-care (Heitkemper et al., 2008). Nursing scientists’ early acknowledgment of gender disparities in health has gone relatively unnoticed by policymakers in the United States. By contrast, the Canadian government has responded to such concerns with a robust policy on gender and health research that is supportive of a socially relevant study of embodied health (Morrow, Hankivsky, & Varcoe, 2007). Because of a lack of similar support, nurse researchers’ contribution to women’s health science might appear anemic in the United States, in contrast to its potential. There are, however, good reasons to remain positive about nursing scientists’ contributions. Our progress can, in fact, be seen in the pages of this very journal. In April 2004, we published a special issue of BRN entitled ‘‘Sex: Does It Matter to Biological Nursing Research?’’ We received 10 12 submissions in response to our call for papers for that issue and published 8 of them. For this current special issue, ‘‘Women’s Health Across the Life Span,’’ the call for papers attracted nearly 40 submissions, resulting in publication of 16 articles over two issues of the journal (12:1 and 12:2). The content of this double special issue provides evidence that biological nursing research makes unique contributions to the science of women’s health on topics spanning the life span, from birth to old age. A number of authors for this special issue present data and analysis that help support our understanding of how sociopolitical factors shape women’s experiences with disease and pregnancy as well as their infants’ survival chances. Melkus et al. report that diabetes self-management training improved metabolic control, quality of life, and perceptions of provider care among African American women with type 2 diabetes, whereas the addition of coping skills training may have assisted in sustaining long-term improvements in health outcomes (12:1). Kuo et al. report data that show a relationship between both stress and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (12:1). Two of the articles address preterm birth, a socially significant problem in the United States, costly whether the calculus is in human life or dollars. Maloni challenges long-held assumptions about the value of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Research For NursingSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207