Embedding Nursing Interventions into the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The International Classification of Health Interventions, currently being developed, seeks to span all sectors of the health system. Our objective was to test the draft classification's coverage of interventions commonly delivered by nurses, and propose changes to improve the utility and reliability of the classification for aggregating and analyzing data on nursing interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2-phase content mapping method was used: (1) three coders independently applied the classification to a dataset comprising 100 high-frequency nursing interventions; (2) the coders reached consensus for each intervention and identified reasons for initial discrepancies. RESULTS: A consensus code was found for 80 of the 100 source terms; for 34% of these, the code was semantically equivalent to the source term, and for 64% it was broader. Issues that contributed to discrepancies in Phase 1 coding results included concepts in source terms not captured by the classification, ambiguities in source terms, and uncertainty of semantic matching between "action" concepts in source terms and classification codes. DISCUSSION: While the classification generally provides good coverage of nursing interventions, there remain a number of content gaps and granularity issues. Further development of definitions and coding guidance is needed to ensure consistency of application. CONCLUSION: This study has produced a set of proposals concerning changes needed to improve the classification. The novel method described here will inform future health terminology and classification content coverage studies.
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 | 0.029 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".