MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472901909 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-658-3-934

How Do Information and Communication Technologies Influence Nursing Care?

2016· article· en· W2472901909 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Julie Payne-Gagnon, Carl‐Ardy Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsICTSDocumentationNursingNursing documentationInformation and Communications TechnologyNursing careQuality (philosophy)Inclusion (mineral)MedicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the well-known advantages of information and communication technologies (ICTs), their overall impact on nursing care has not been synthesized. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to summarize the best evidence regarding the effects of ICTs on nursing care. We considered quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method reviews published since January 1995. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract of 5515 papers to assess their eligibility. From these, 72 full-text papers were evaluated and 28 publications met the inclusion criteria. Three reviewers extracted and compared their data. Preliminary results show that the following dimensions of nursing care are the most frequently reported: assessment, care planning and evaluation, documentation time, quality of care and patient safety. This overview provides a starting point from which to compare and contrast findings of separate reviews regarding the positive, neutral and negative effects of ICTs on nursing care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207