MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149260655 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2007.19291

Using Appreciative Inquiry to Promote Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing: The Glass Is More Than Half Full

2007· review· en· W2149260655 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppreciative inquiryEnthusiasmIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)NursingPsychologyHealth careEvidence-based practiceMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now understood that successful implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) requires a focus on the context of the care setting. While the focal point of many reports is the limitations and barriers, this paper proposes a new approach to "making EBP happen." Appreciative Inquiry (AI), both a method of social research and an organizational development or change intervention, is a novel means to elicit enthusiasm and support for EBP in nursing. Readers will be introduced to the theoretical foundations and assumptions as well as the "4-D Model" of AI. It is proposed that the advanced practice nurse (APN) is in a key position to introduce and support this intervention in healthcare organizations to promote the successful implementation of EBP.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.538
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it