Clinical Nurse Specialists’ Perceptions of a Mental Health Patient Portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to explore clinical nurse specialists' views of the potential influence of a mental health portal on nursing practice and to identify portal implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 5 clinical nurse specialists. Two independent coders conducted an inductive content analysis of the transcribed interviews to generate codes describing patterns in the data to identify originating themes. RESULTS: The content analysis uncovered the following 4 themes: (1) implementation strategies, (2) nurse likelihood to recommend, (3) impact on nursing practice, and (4) perceived influence on patients. CONCLUSION: Direct care nurses may benefit from education and coaching on how to document in the record using patient-centered language that is understandable to patients who may be reading it. In addition, the use of patient portals should be designed to fit into nurses' existing clinical workflows. Finally, more research is needed to identify the benefits and unintended consequences of patient portals within a mental health context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".