Towards a decision support system for health promotion in nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study was designed to investigate what type of models, techniques and data are necessary to support the development of a decision support system for health promotion practice in nursing. Specifically, the research explored how interview data can be interpreted in terms of Concept Networks and Bayesian Networks, both of which provide formal methods for describing the dependencies between factors or variables in the context of decision-making in health promotion. BACKGROUND: In nursing, the lack of generally accepted examples or guidelines by which to implement or evaluate health promotion practice is a challenge. Major gaps have been identified between health promotion rhetoric and practice and there is a need for health promotion to be presented in ways that make its attitudes and practices more easily understood. New tools, paradigms and techniques to encourage the practice of health promotion would appear to be beneficial. Concept Networks and Bayesian Networks are techniques that may assist the research team to understand and explicate health promotion more specifically and formally than has been the case, so that it may more readily be integrated into nursing practice. METHODS: As the ultimate goal of the study was to investigate ways to use the techniques described above, it was necessary to first generate data as text. Textual descriptions of health promotion in nursing were derived from in-depth qualitative interviews with nurses nominated by their peers as expert health promoting practitioners. FINDINGS: The nurses in this study gave only general and somewhat vague outlines of the concepts and ideas that guided their practice. These data were compared with descriptions from various sources that describe health promotion practices in nursing, then examples of a Conceptual Network and a representative Bayesian Network were derived from the data. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the difficulty in describing health promotion practice, even among nurses recognized for their expertise in health promotion. Nevertheless, it indicated the data collection and analysis methods necessary to explicate the cognitive processes of health promotion and highlighted the benefits of using formal conceptualization techniques to improve health promotion practice.
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 | 0.045 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".