Developing a Web Site: A Strategy for Employment Integration of Internationally Educated Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review is focused on the effectiveness of nursing interventions for patient outcomes and healthcare costs. It was guided by ecological and economic evaluation frameworks. Restricting the first-tier search of over 4,000 articles to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded 203 studies and 9 additional trials that used identical methods of cost evaluation. Of 212 RCTs, 37 met the eligibility criteria. Of the 37 articles, 29 came from the literature search and 8 came from the first author's research unit, which used identical methods of economic evaluation. Of the first 29 studies, 26 found that nurse interventions were more or equally effective and less or equally costly compared to usual care, as was true of 7 of the 9 RCTs with comprehensive economic evaluations. It is effective and efficient to deploy specialty-trained nurses to lead teams of professionals, including physicians, assembled to address complex patient needs. A nurse-led model of proactive and supplemental care for the chronically ill, versus the on-demand, physician-led model now in place, would be more or equally effective and less or equally costly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.120 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.013 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".