MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2836371487 · doi:10.1186/s12939-018-0814-0

Setting the agenda for nurse leadership in India: what is missing

2018· article· en· W2836371487 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 for Equity in Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreDepartment for International DevelopmentDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsLegitimacyNursingHealth care reformHealth policyHealth careThematic analysisGovernment (linguistics)Nurse educationPolitical scienceNursing researchCorporate governancePublic relationsPublic administrationMedicineQualitative researchPublic healthPoliticsSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current policy priorities to strengthen the nursing sector in India have focused on increasing the number of nurses in the health system. However, the nursing sector is afflicted by other, significant problems including the low status of nurses in the hierarchy of health care professionals, low salaries, and out-dated systems of professional governance, all affecting nurses' leadership potential and ability to perform. Stronger nurse leadership has the potential to support the achievement of health system goals, especially for strengthening of primary health care, which has been recognised and addressed in several other country contexts. This research study explores the process of policy agenda-setting for nurse leadership in India, and aims to identify the structural and systemic constraints in setting the agenda for policy reforms on the issue. METHODS: Our methods included policy document review and expert interviews. We identified policy reforms proposed by different government appointed committees on issues concerning nurses' leadership and its progress. Experts' accounts were used to understand lack of progress in several nursing reform proposals and analysed using deductive thematic analysis for 'legitimacy', 'feasibility' and 'support', in line with Hall's agenda setting model. RESULTS: The absence of quantifiable evidence on the nurse leadership crisis and treatment of nursing reforms as a 'second class' issue were found to negatively influence perceptions of the legitimacy of nurse leadership reform. Feasibility is affected by the lack of representation of nurses in key positions and the absence of a nurse-specific institution, which is seen as essential for creating visibility of the issues facing the profession, their processing and planning for policy solutions. Finally, participants noted the lack of strong support from nurses themselves for these policy reforms, which they attributed to social disempowerment, and lack of professional autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: The study emphasises that the nursing empowerment needs institutional reforms to facilitate nurse's distributed leadership across the health system and to enable their collective advocacy that questions the status quo and the structures that uphold 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.260
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.243 · 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