MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766705750 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018441

Effects of e-learning in a continuing education context on nursing care: a review of systematic qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies reviews (protocol)

2017· review· en· W2766705750 on OpenAlexafffund
Geneviève Rouleau, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, José Côté, Julie Payne-Gagnon, Émilie Hudson, Julien Bouix‐Picasso, Carl‐Ardy Dubois

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociauxUniversité LavalMax-Planck-GesellschaftRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)Qualitative researchNursingMedical educationContinuing educationSystematic reviewNursing researchMEDLINEAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Continuing education (CE) is imperative to the future of professional nursing. The use of e-learning by registered nurses for CE is spreading. A review of systematic reviews will be conducted to develop a broad picture of the effects of e-learning in a CE context on nursing care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies reviews published in English, French or Spanish from 1 January 2006 will be included. The outcomes of interest will be extracted and analysed inductively and deductively from the Nursing Care Performance Framework; some themes include nursing resources, nurses' practice environment, processes, professional satisfaction, and nursing sensitive outcomes. Three reviewers will independently screen first the title and abstract of the papers, and then the full texts in order to assess eligibility. Two teams of two reviewers will extract the selected reviews' characteristics and data. The results from various types of reviews will be integrated using a data-based convergent synthesis design. We will conduct a thematic synthesis and transform all quantitative and mixed data into qualitative data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for review of systematic reviews. We will summarise evidence concerning the negative, neutral and positive effects of various forms of e-learning on different aspects of nursing care. If we find gaps in the literature, we will highlight them and suggest ideas for further research. We will also focus on positive effects and present, if possible, the components and characteristics of e-learning interventions that were found to be successful. We will present this protocol and results in international conferences in nursing, medical, and health informatics domains. We will also submit the results of our work for peer-review publication in a journal indexed in the international bibliographic database of biomedical information.

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.226
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.226
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0200.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.706
GPT teacher head0.747
Teacher spread0.041 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207