An evaluation of nurse prescribing. Part 2: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This is the second of a 2-part literature review, which aims to provide a summary of the research conducted into nurse prescribing and patients' perspectives, the prescribing practice and benefits of prescribing. BACKGROUND: Prescriptive authority for nurses was first introduced by America in 1969, followed later by the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Sweden. A review of research conducted internationally was performed to inform the development of prescribing policies and practice and to guide future research. METHOD: A number of electronic databases were searched in March 2009 and 155 results were retrieved. Forty-four studies satisfied the criteria for inclusion. Twenty-two of those studies are included in this part of the review. FINDINGS: Sixteen studies reviewed were UK based, four from the USA and just two from Australia. Twenty-one of the studies focused solely on primary/secondary care, with just one on the hospital setting alone. Twelve studies incorporated nurse prescribers' views, while nine elicited patients' views and one explored the views of the general public and nurse prescribing. Findings of studies relating to patients' perspectives on prescribing were generally positive but methodologies in these studies were very diverse. Varied and context-specific evidence of the practices of nurse prescribers was presented in studies investigating this aspect of nurse prescribing. CONCLUSION: This review has demonstrated the diversity of research conducted in the area of patients' perspectives on nurse prescribing, prescribing practices and benefits of nurse prescribing. It has identified areas that require further investigation which, in turn, will inform the future development of nurse and midwife prescribing.
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 | 0.022 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".