Managements' perspective on Canadian public health nurses' primary health care practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interpretive qualitative study was conducted to examine public health nurses' (PHNs') practice in fostering citizen participation and collaborative practice and the impact of a decade (1992–2002) of health care restructuring. This article presents the perspectives of public health management and a public policy analysis as they relate to PHNs' primary health care practice in Nova Scotia, a province in Eastern Canada. Seven face-to-face interviews were conducted with public health management from across Nova Scotia and 26 relevant public policy documents were analyzed. Three major themes emerged from the coded transcripts and the document analysis: (1) opportunistic shifts in values: constraining structures, operations, and governance; (2) insufficient funding and infrastructure support; (3) opportunities and challenges to PHN capacity and competency. The emergent themes illustrate the unique population health perspective and day-to-day contested realities of public health and PHN practice. The study provides preliminary understanding of PHNs' primary health care practice in Nova Scotia that may resonate with other national and international settings. This knowledge can form a basis for more research to explore the PHNs' practice in the organizational context in which it is embedded. This study was undertaken at a pivotal time in Nova Scotia as the provincial government embarked on primary health care renewal to improve the health of Nova Scotians. The success of this study is in large part attributable to the collaborative effort of university researchers and public health decision makers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".