The communicative power of nurse practitioners in multidisciplinary primary healthcare teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to explore the role of the nurse practitioner (NP) in facilitating knowledge exchange within multidisciplinary primary healthcare teams. The rationale for the study is that most knowledge transfer and exchange literature is from a single profession perspective; yet, an increasing number of healthcare practitioners work in the context of multidisciplinary teams. There is little research examining the mechanisms by which knowledge crosses professional and disciplinary boundaries. DATA SOURCE: The study's data source is a survey administered to NPs in urban, rural, and remote primary healthcare teams in Saskatchewan. The mapping techniques of social network analysis are applied to the survey data. CONCLUSIONS: The study's conclusions concern the structure of the intrateam knowledge-exchange behaviors and, in particular, the role of the NP as knowledge boundary spanner. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The study hypothesizes that the hallmark of well-functioning multidisciplinary teams is the effective intrateam knowledge exchange and that Saskatchewan's new NPs bring a "boundary-spanning" capacity to the knowledge exchange of the province's multidisciplinary primary healthcare teams. The study fills this gap in the conceptual and empirical research within the evolving context of the reorganization of primary health care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".