World Class Excellence in an International Gerontological Nursing Journal: Announcing Our 2017 <scp>IJOPN</scp> Author and Reviewer Awards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of our most inspiring tasks as the editorial team of International Journal of Older People Nursing is reading and publishing the path-breaking research of colleagues old and new. But we are also reminded of the substantial efforts of our peers that make IJOPN an increasingly valued, and always relevant, outlet for gerontological nursing research. One important way in which we celebrate this innovative and important research, and the peer review that ensures its credibility and quality, is by our annual awards. This is the third year we present awards for outstanding papers and the second year that we recognise excellence in peer review. This year, we worked with our international awards committee to take on the challenging task of selecting among the papers published in IJOPN during 2017. Our committee included returning judges Dr Victoria Traynor of the University of Wollongong in Australia and Dr Joanne Fitzpatrick of King's College London in the United Kingdom, as well as Dr Jennifer Baumbusch of the University of British Columbia in Canada, who won one of our inaugural paper awards. This year, we were also pleased to welcome Prof Hiromi Hirata of the University of Shiga Prefecture in Japan, who won one of our paper awards last year. The four papers that emerged as the winners of this year's awards inspire confidence that gerontological nursing research will continue to find new frontiers of relevance and impact around the world. Two awards were given for research informing practice and for research with methodological innovation, of which one in each category was awarded to a student. Please join us in congratulating this year's award winners. Award-winning papers presented a qualitative or quantitative analysis including systematic review, the findings of which have potential to influence practice in gerontological nursing. Exceptional and possibly groundbreaking insights arising from clear aims extended in thoughtfully conceived and carefully conducted investigations distinguish the award-winning papers. We are pleased to present two awards in this category, one to a postdoctoral nurse researcher and one to a nurse researcher completing her doctoral studies. Dr Billy Caceres, currently a postdoctoral research fellow at Columbia University School of Nursing, for his paper Caceres, B. A., Bub, L., Negrete, M. I., Giraldo Rodriguez, L., & Squires, A. P. Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of neglect of older people in Mexico: A qualitative secondary analysis. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 13(1): e12168. Dr Caceres documented an aspect of neglect of older people previously poorly understood in international contexts, which arose in the course of his broader research with an international group on care models for older people. As he wrote, “We completed a feasibility and needs assessment to determine the possibility of adapting the Nurses Improving Care for Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) program to Mexico. This interdisciplinary team, led by Dr Allison Squires, included members from NICHE and Mexico's National Institute of Geriatrics. Healthcare professionals (N = 89) across five public hospitals in four geographic regions in Mexico participated in semi-structured focus groups. An unanticipated finding of this work, which inspired the present paper, was the impact of caregiver neglect of older people.” Ms Catharina Melander, currently a doctoral student at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden, for her paper Melander, C., Sävenstedt, S., Wälivaara, B.-M., & Olsson, M. Human capabilities in advanced dementia: Nussbaum's approach. International Journal of Older People Nursing, ahead of print. Ms Melander's inquiry, which included philosophical depth alongside important practice implications, offers new ways of thinking about how nurses care for older people with dementia. As she described, “Within the health care context the importance to address and support human needs is often emphasized. However, it is seldom discussed which human needs are essential to human life and why, and which life circumstances each human being are worthy of. The focus on thinking about what a dignified life should include and ensuring that dignity is often missing. To study the capability approach described by Martha Nussbaum within the dementia care context is a way to illuminate which areas that are challenging to attain, and thus may need additional focus and support in order to secure a dignified life for individuals with advanced dementia living in nursing homes.” Papers worthy of the awards in methodological innovation offer original and innovative analysis in gerontological nursing marked by notable rigor. Award-winning papers deploy exacting and clearly executed methods well matched to the challenges inherent in the research question posed by the authors. We cite two papers this year their methodological contributions, one by an experienced nurse clinician and one to a nurse researcher with a recently completed doctoral degree, the work from which informed the publication honoured here. Ms Andreina D'Onofrio, who was at the time of the paper's publication a clinical nurse specialist at University of Lausanne Hospital Center in Switzerland, for her paper D'Onofrio, A., Büla, C., Rubli, E., Butrogno, F., & Morin, D. Functional trajectories of older patients admitted to an Acute Care Unit for Elders. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 13(1): e12164. Ms D'Onofrio's work blended epidemiological methods with clinical insights to contribute an understanding of which older people experience functional decline before and during their stay in an acute care unit. As she noted, the research was “borne from my interest in investigating the contributions of nurses in the successful implementation of an acute geriatric unit in our hospital center. In collaboration with an interdisciplinary team, we developed in this unit an approach that contributed to set up for each patient a systematic comprehensive geriatric assessment, to define individualized therapeutic goals and management plans, as well as an optimal discharge plan. I was convinced that nurses had a critical role in this process because they support patients every day to restore their functional independence and their quality of life. This assumption created the conditions for designing this observational study with the goal to illustrate the potential benefits for the patients in terms of functional trajectories.” Dr Lillian Hung, who is currently a clinical nurse specialist at Vancouver General Hospital and a newly minted doctorate holder, for her paper Hung, L., Phinney, A., Chaudhury, H., Rodney, P., Tabamo, J., & Bohl, D. “Little things matter!” Exploring the perspectives of patients with dementia about the hospital environment. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 12(3): e12153. Dr Hung's action research study gave voice to a group often ignored in service development: the service users themselves. Her research, which sought to understand the perspectives of older people living with dementia, highlighted their views on how to make services more responsive. She wrote, “The older people with dementia and their stories inspired me to undertake the research presented in the paper. I believe the first-person voice of direct experience gives the most powerful messages. Patient stories made my research meaningful because they connected the whole clinical team and inspired them to take actions for change.” This year, for the second time, we present awards to peer reviewers whose contributions to IJOPN exceeded all expectations, as they provided high-quality reviews with lucid and constructive feedback to authors. We are pleased to present awards to two scholars, one early career academic and one established career academic, who reviewed papers in the year 2017. Dr Sara Jacoby noted, on receipt of her award, “Participating in the peer review process for the Journal of Older People Nursing offers the opportunity to contribute to the dissemination of research and viewpoints that support the development of healthcare scholarship and practice. This is vital in the advancement of the care of older, and all, people worldwide. I also believe that reviewing other's contributions to the field is of tremendous benefit to how I am able to critically reflect and evolve in my own research and peer-reviewed writing.” Dr Carol Windsor reflected on learning of her award “I consider quality peer review critical to the development of rigorous scholarship in nursing. Good scholarly work, in turn, is an essential contributor to reforms in nursing practice, in the organisation of nursing work and in the positioning of nursing within health services and beyond.” Join us in celebrating our award winners and appreciating their scholarly contributions as they help advance our discipline and profession, improving science and care for older people around the world.
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 | 0.065 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.047 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.030 |
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".