Study of 23 advanced-practice nurses suggest that their ability to facilitate evidence-based practice among frontline nurses is influenced by their personal attributes, relationships with stakeholders, responsibility and workload and organisational context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Gerrish K, Nolan M, McDonnell A, et al. Factors influencing advanced-practice nurses’ ability to promote evidence-based practice among frontline nurses. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2012;9:30–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] The importance of utilising EBP to enhance patient care is known, yet front line nurses (FLN) remain slow to adopt.1 APNs have been noted to utilise EBP within … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.stitle%253DWorldviews%2BEvid%2BBased%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DGerrish%26rft.auinit1%253DK.%26rft.volume%253D9%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D30%26rft.epage%253D39%26rft.atitle%253DFactors%2Binfluencing%2Badvanced%2Bpractice%2Bnurses%2527%2Bability%2Bto%2Bpromote%2Bevidence-based%2Bpractice%2Bamong%2Bfrontline%2Bnurses.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1741-6787.2011.00230.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22128874%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011.00230.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22128874&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F16%2F2%2F60.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000299725500004&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".