Disparities in New Graduate Transition from Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand multiple stakeholder perspectives of new graduate (NG) transition programs. It was part of a larger mixed-methods study (2011) designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of new graduate nurse transition best practices, across six British Columbia health authorities. Data collection involved individual interviews with academic nurse educators (n=4) and separate focus groups with new graduate (n=48) and front-line nurse leaders (n=69). Disparity emerged as the overriding theme and described differences between stakeholder group perspectives, between expectations and reality, and within and across programs. Four disparities emerged: entry-level education and practice, perspectives on employment and career planning, transition program elements and support. Despite general satisfaction with undergraduate preparation, theory-practice gaps were identified. New Graduates experienced misalignments between their employment expectations and their realities. The employed student nurse program in which many new graduates had participated did not always yield employment, but when it did, differences in transitional expectations arose between new graduates and leaders. There was considerable variation across and within provincial new graduate programs with respect to orientation, supernumerary time and preceptorship characteristics, including lack of training. Disparities arose in the nature, amount of and access to support and the monitoring of new graduate progress. Findings reinforced organizational complexities and the importance of communication across education and practice sectors. This paper uncovers the tensions between the perspectives of new graduates and nurse leaders about transitional programs and opens the opportunity to collaborate in aligning the perspectives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".