Who Stays in Rural Practice?: An Internatinal Review of the Literature on Factors Influencing Rural Nurse Retention
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores factors that influence rural nurse retention. A comprehensive literature review was used to highlight, examine and evaluate studies that identify factors, including personal characteristics and experiences, in relation to rural nurse retention and job satisfaction. The findings from the literature review suggest rural nurse retention is influenced by level of job satisfaction. The findings also suggest factors, including personal characteristics and experiences, influence job satisfaction. The literature review findings further indicate factors, including personal characteristics and experiences, affect the duration of rural nurse practice. The current rural nursing retention strategies in British Columbia are explored. Based on the findings from the literature review, detailed recommendations for future research and recommendations for rural nursing retention strategies are made. The concepts identified inform health human resources retention strategies, specifically nursing retention in rural areas.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it