MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598265389 · doi:10.1111/jocn.13803

A critical review of published research literature reviews on nursing and healthcare ageism

2017· review· en· W2598265389 on OpenAlexaff
Donna M. Wilson, Mavis A. Nam, Jill Murphy, João Paulo Victorino, Ellen Cristina Gondim, Gail Low

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLHealth careMEDLINENursingInclusion (mineral)Psychological interventionSystematic reviewMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To establish how common and impactful nursing and healthcare ageism is and whether proven interventions or prevention methods exist. BACKGROUND: Ageism has been a concern since 1969 when it was first introduced as a concept for social reform. As ageism has been linked to lower quality health services and reduced health care access, it is imperative that healthcare and nursing ageism is prevented or identified and reduced or eliminated. DESIGN: A qualitative narrative review of published research literature reviews using a scoping design to map all published reviews was undertaken. The EBSCO Discovery Service (providing access to articles in 271 databases, including MEDLINE and CINAHL) and Directory of Open Access Journals (providing access to over 9,000 open access journals) were used to find review articles. Using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and limited by English language and peer-review publications, 12 eligible reviews were identified and information from them was systematically identified, assessed and synthesised. RESULTS: The 12 reviews did not provide clear and convincing information to determine how common and impactful nursing or healthcare ageism is, nor what can best be done to prevent or address it. Although each review had value since research literature was collected and discussed on nursing or healthcare ageism, the array of literature search and analysis methods, and diversity in conclusions reached about the evidence is highly problematic. CONCLUSION: Research literature reviews offering a more balanced perspective and demonstrating greater care in finding and using quality evidence are needed. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: At this point in time, there is no clear understanding of how widespread and impactful nursing or healthcare ageism is, and what can best be done to prevent or address it. Nurses need to be aware that ageism may be common and impactful, and guard against it.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0440.033
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.632
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.086 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207