Nurse Executives’ Perceptions of the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To improve the overall quality and effectiveness of the Canadian health care system through better decisions supported by research-based evidence (RBE), the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) and partners have created the Executive Training for Research Application (EXTRA) program. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how nurse executive fellows perceive changes in their levels of knowledge of RBE and in their level of use of RBE following participation in the EXTRA program. METHODS: Nurse executives in the first four cohorts of the program (2004-2007) completed a survey during their 2-year fellowship period. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were observed regarding nurse executives' perceived knowledge and use of RBE. According to the participants, the EXTRA fellowship contributes to their role and function in their organization by providing tools, learning, and access to resources and networking, which contributes to their credibility, leadership, and knowledge transfer skills. CONCLUSIONS: The EXTRA program has been structured to reduce barriers and to enhance the facilitators found in the literature on the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) in health care settings. Overall, nurse executives perceived that the benefits of participating in the EXTRA program were both individual and organizational.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".