MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372999466 · doi:10.14288/1.0166132

The structure and enactment of agency in the context of rural nursing practice

2015· article· en· W2372999466 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara J. Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)NursingNursing practiceMedicineSociologySocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing awareness of inequities in rural healthcare in Canada and internationally. Rural nurses are embedded within complex healthcare structures, yet little attention has been paid to their experiences. These complex structures can function to both constrain and enable nurses to provide equitable, safe, and quality healthcare services to rural populations. This ethnographic study was conducted with rural nurses to explore the relationship between healthcare structures and rural nurses’ enactment of their agency. Informed by Structuration Theory (Giddens, 1984), Sewell’s (1992) notion of reciprocity, and a relational ethics lens, this research illuminates the relationship between the structures and rural nurses’ enactment of their agency in providing healthcare to rural based populations. Carspecken’s Critical Qualitative Research method (1996) was used to guide data collection during 528 hours of fieldwork and participant observations with primary nurse and allied healthcare provider participants (n=14). Additional data collected included: in-depth interviews (n=18); participant demographics; documents; and cultural commodities. Findings showed that the rural structure-nurse agent relationship was strained by urban-based policy-making. In particular, the rural practice context lacked sufficient physical and human resources to enact urban-policy directives (e.g. being unable to provide consistent primary and palliative care services). Nursing’s lack of active participation in policy decision-making has further impacted lack of policy directives toward fostering development of rural practice expertise. Key themes of: “we’re it”; “unseen complexity”; “pulling the nurse’s card”; “how many hands do you see?” and “beg forgiveness Monday morning” exemplified the disjuncture between rural and urban healthcare policy and practice. Inequities in access to healthcare services ultimately expanded rural nurses’ perceived moral obligations to include providing ad hoc care to the community outside of the formal system. Findings underscore that it is vital that rural nurses have an active voice in rural healthcare policy and decision-making in order to strengthen reciprocal relations and to provide equitable, safe, and ethical healthcare services for rural communities. Recommendations also include support for a nursing role in policy-making, increasing education opportunities, and expanding the scope of rural nursing practice to meet the demands of the rural practice context.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.022
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207