MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921355412 · doi:10.1111/scs.12670

Usefulness of nursing theory‐guided practice: an integrative review

2019· review· en· W2921355412 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsNipissing UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionNursing theoryNursing Interventions ClassificationNursingNursing carePsychologyNursing Outcomes ClassificationNursing researchMedicineNursing practiceMEDLINETeam nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nursing theory-guided practice helps improve the quality of nursing care because it allows nurses to articulate what they do for patients and why they do it. However, the usefulness of nursing theory-guided practice has been questioned and more emphasis has been placed on evidence-based nursing and traditional practice. Therefore, an examination of experimental studies was undertaken to analyse the extent of use and usefulness of nursing theories in guiding practice. We reviewed experimental studies because in this era of evidence-based practice, these designs are given more weightage over other research designs. This examination would corroborate the usefulness of nursing theory-guided practice compared to traditional practice. METHODS: An integrative review was conducted. Literature search was performed within multiple databases, and 35 studies were reviewed and appraised. RESULTS: Majority of the studies were from Iran, the United States and Turkey and used Orem's self-care model, Roy's adaptation model and Peplau's theory of interpersonal relations. The effect of theory-guided interventions was evaluated in improving quality of life, self-efficacy, self-care and stress of patients with chronic, acute, cardiac and psychological illnesses. The quality rating was judged to be strong for three studies, moderate for 25 studies and weak for seven studies. All of the strongly rated studies found nursing theory-guided interventions useful. Overall, nursing theory-guided interventions improved all of studied outcomes in 26 studies and at least one outcome in nine studies. None of the studies reported that nursing theory-guided interventions as not useful. CONCLUSION: Nursing theories have guided practice in both eastern and Western countries, and theory-guided practice has been found useful compared to traditional nursing practice. Therefore, nurses should continue to guide their nursing practice through the lens of nursing theories and should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of nursing theory-guided practice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.346 · 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