The Development of Evidence Briefs to Transfer Knowledge about Advanced Practice Nursing Roles to Providers, Policymakers and Administrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transfer of health-related research knowledge between producers and users is a complex, dynamic and iterative process. There has been little research describing the preferred knowledge transfer strategies used by different stakeholder groups, including healthcare providers, policymakers and administrators. The purpose of the survey was to gain an understanding of the content and preferred dissemination strategies of knowledge users of briefing notes about the effectiveness of advanced practice nursing (APN) roles in Canada. An on-line cross-sectional survey was conducted from December 2011 to January 2012. Purposeful sampling was used to identify the target audience. The questionnaire included six items. The response rate was 44% (n=75/170). Participants identified that the briefing note should concisely summarize definitions for APN roles and information about the safety, effectiveness, cost savings and effective role implementation strategies. Multiple approaches were favoured to disseminate the information. Preferred dissemination strategies included personalized emails, meeting with briefing note recipients, engaging nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists in organizations where APN roles have been successfully implemented, engaging the media and using social media. The use of briefing notes has shown promise. More research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of tailored briefing notes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".