Nursing Informatics Research Priorities for the Future: Recommendations from an International Survey
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
We present one part of the results of an international survey exploring current and future nursing informatics (NI) research trends. The study was conducted by the International Medical Informatics Association Nursing Informatics Special Interest Group (IMIA-NISIG) Student Working Group. Based on findings from this cross-sectional study, we identified future NI research priorities. We used snowball sampling technique to reach respondents from academia and practice. Data were collected between August and September 2015. Altogether, 373 responses from 44 countries were analyzed. The identified top ten NI trends were big data science, standardized terminologies (clinical evaluation/implementation), education and competencies, clinical decision support, mobile health, usability, patient safety, data exchange and interoperability, patient engagement, and clinical quality measures. Acknowledging these research priorities can enhance successful future development of NI to better support clinicians and promote health internationally.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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