Central and peripheral information source use among rural and remote Registered Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper reports a study examining the use of central (colleagues, inservice and newsletters) and peripheral information sources (Internet, library, journal subscriptions and continuing education) among a large sample of rural and remote nurses and explores the factors associated with the use of particular peripheral information sources. BACKGROUND: There have been few studies of the specific sources of information accessed by Registered Nurses, particularly rural or remote nurses, and the characteristics of nurses and their organizations that are associated with the use of particular information sources. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted with 3933 Registered Nurses from all regions of rural and remote Canada between October 2001 and July 2002. We used frequencies and cross-tabulations to describe rates of information use, and forward selection logistic regression with likelihood ratio selection to build the best-fitting model of the variables that affected the odds of using each peripheral information source. RESULTS: Nursing colleagues ranked as the information source most frequently used, and the Internet and library ranked lowest. On average, nurses used a statistically significantly greater number of central than peripheral sources. Peripheral information source use was higher among nurses who had access to current information, opportunities to share their knowledge with others, higher education levels, were in positions of authority and worked with healthcare students. The associations between age and geographical location varied according to the peripheral information source under consideration. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of rural and remote nurses used at least one peripheral information source to inform their practice. Increasing the number of research sources used by these nurses requires attention to issues of information access in these areas, as well as issues of staff recruitment and retention of staff in under-serviced rural and remote regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".