MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513728496 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckv170.105

Evidence-based nursing practices in primary care services for migrants: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W2513728496 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Dauvrin, Bilkis Vissandjée

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPrimary careMedicineSystematic reviewPrimary health careMEDLINEFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiencing migration differently affects the health of individuals according to additional factors of vulnerability as gender or legal status. In primary care services, nurses are key actors in caring for such vulnerable migrants but evidence-based practices are still lacking. This literature review aims at identifying evidence-based nursing practices in primary care services for vulnerable migrant populations. Methods. We identified nursing interventions caring for migrants in primary care services in the literature published between 2000 and 2015. Vulnerability of the migrants was measured with the PROGRESS framework. Nursing components of the interventions were analyzed according to the 6 dimensions of the model of Advance Practice Nursing (Hamric et al. 2014). Quality appraisal included 8 criteria, each study received a score of quality. Results. We reviewed 104 papers and found 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Being vulnerable as a migrant was mostly defined as not being able to communicate with the health professionals (n = 20). Most interventions targeted type 2 diabetes (n = 8) and cardiovascular diseases (n = 8). Attention to the specific needs of the migrants was achieved through cultural and linguistic adaptations but only one intervention included the intersectionality of risk factors (e.g. paying attention to migration, gender and socioeconomic status). Expert guidance/coaching and consultation were the two advanced practice nursing components reported in all studies. Collaboration, leadership, research and ethical decision-making skills were not reported in the retrieved studies. Overall, nursing interventions appear to be effective in improving health outcomes for migrants. Conclusion This literature review provides a relevant basis for researches and professional development for nurses. Further studies should support the development of collaboration, leadership, research and ethical decision-making skills of nurses in primary care services. Key messages Nursing interventions appear to be effective in improving health outcomes for migrants Further studies should support the development of collaboration, leadership, research and ethical decision-making skills of nurses in primary care services

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207