MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294238746 · doi:10.22605/rrh3637

Supporting nurses' transition to rural healthcare environments through mentorship

2016· article· en· W2294238746 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noelle Rohatinsky, Sharleen Jahner

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipHealth careInterpersonal communicationNursingRural areaMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The global shortage of rural healthcare professionals threatens the access these communities have to adequate healthcare resources. Barriers to recruitment and retention of nurses in rural facilities include limited resources, professional development opportunities, and interpersonal ties to the area. Mentorship programs have been used to successfully recruit and retain rural nurses. This study aimed to explore (i) employee perceptions of mentorship in rural healthcare organizations, (ii) the processes involved in creating mentoring relationships in rural healthcare organizations, and (iii) the organizational features supporting and inhibiting mentorship in rural healthcare organizations. This study was conducted in one rural health region in Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: Volunteer participants who were employed at one rural healthcare facility were interviewed. A semi-structured interview guide that focused on exploring and gaining an understanding of participants' perceptions of mentorship in rural communities was employed. Data were analyzed using interpretive description methodology, which places high value on participants' subjective perspective and knowledge of their experience. RESULTS: All seven participants were female and employed as registered nurses or licensed practical nurses. Participants recognized that the rural environment offered unique challenges and opportunities for the transition of nurses new to rural healthcare. Participants believed mentorships facilitated this transition and were vital to the personal and professional success of new employees. Specifically, their insights indicated that this transition was influenced by three factors: rural community influences, organizational influences, and mentorship program influences. Facilitators for mentorships hinged on the close working relationships that facilitated the development of trust. Barriers to mentorship included low staff numbers, limited selection of volunteer mentors, and lack of mentorship education. CONCLUSIONS: The rural community context clearly presents challenges for the transition of nurses. Participants described mentorship as a vital component to personal and professional success of new employees in rural areas. The findings of this qualitative exploratory study inform the development of creative and supportive ways to establish mentorships to address the challenges specifically associated with integration of nurses into rural practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207