MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097537134 · doi:10.5750/ejpch.v3i1.853

A Description of Nurse Practitioners’ Self-Report Implementation of Patient-Centered Care

2015· article· en· W2097537134 on OpenAlexaffabout
Souraya Sidani, Laura Collins, Patti Harbman, Christina Hurlock- Chorostecki, Kathleen MacMillan, Scott T. Reeves, Faith Donald, Mary van Soeren, Patti Staples

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal for Person Centered Healthcare · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalHotel Dieu HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreTrillium Health CentreDalhousie UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationConceptualizationNursingHealth careMedicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to describe the nurse practitioners’ self-reported implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and factors that influence their delivery of PCC. It was guided by a conceptualization of PCC that identified three components that distinguish PCC (i.e. holistic, collaborative, and responsive care) and respective activities that operationalize them. A sample of 149 nurse practitioners employed in acute and long term care settings, in Ontario Canada, completed a valid and reliable measure of the extent to which they implemented the three PCC components. The results indicated that the majority of respondents reported engagement in most activities reflective of the PCC components, most of the time, and that experienced nurse practitioners performed a large number of these activities. Further research should examine the contribution of each PCC component, as implemented by nurse practitioners and other members of the healthcare team, to patient-oriented outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal for Person Centered HealthcareSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207