MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International practice settings, interventions and outcomes of nurse practitioners in geriatric care: A scoping review

2017· review· en· W2754999017 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINENursingFamily medicineHealth careGrey literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To identify and summarize the common clinical settings, interventions, and outcomes of nurse practitioner care specific to older people. DESIGN: Scoping review of the international published and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: A structured literature search was conducted of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. REVIEW METHODS: Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies of Masters-prepared nurse practitioners providing care for patients over 65 years were included. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators. Data were extracted, collated by setting, summarized in tables and synthesized for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 56 primary research studies from four countries and 23 systematic reviews were identified. Primary studies were conducted in primary care (n=13), home care (n=14), long-term care (n=10), acute/hospital care (n=9), and transitional care (n=10). Nurse practitioner interventions included substitutive as well as a supplementation NP role elements to meet specific unmet patient care needs. Studies examined six main outcome measures: service utilization (n=41), cost (n=24), length of stay (n=14), health indices (n=44), satisfaction (n=14) and quality of life (n=7). Cumulatively, nurse practitioners demonstrated enhanced results in 83/144 (58%) of outcomes compared to physician-only or usual care. The most commonly measured financial-related outcome was service utilization (n=41) and benefits were frequently reported in home care (8/9, 89%) and long-term care (7/10, 70%) settings. Among patient and care-related outcomes health indices were most frequently measured (n=44). Primary care most frequently reported improved health indices (11/13, 85%). Transitional care reported improved outcomes across all measures, except for service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates improved or non-inferiority results of nurse practitioner care in older people across settings. More well-designed, rigorous studies are needed particularly in relation to costs. The results of this review could be used for future systemic review of effectiveness of NP care specific to older people. Despite the demonstrated NP role value, barriers to implementing the nurse practitioner role persist internationally and more work is needed to develop and promote these roles.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.364 · 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