MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937217482 · doi:10.1111/jonm.12780

Nurses leadership in research and policy in Nigeria: A myth or reality?

2019· article· en· W2937217482 on OpenAlexaff
Ekaete Francis Asuquo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyNursing managementNursingNurse AdministratorPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineMEDLINEPhilosophyTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study evaluates nurses' leadership in research and policy formulation in southern Nigeria. BACKGROUND: In Africa and particularly in low- and middle-income countries, expected health information from nurse's leaders is sometimes not available, thereby hindering the attainment of sustainable health. METHODS: This qualitative study used 12 high-ranking nurses leader from primary, secondary and tertiary health care systems in Cross River State, Nigeria. In-depth interview and focus group discussion were used to generate and validate collected data. RESULTS: There was marginal leadership in research and policy formulation. The hindering factors were mainly individual and institutional barriers. CONCLUSION: Nurses effective leadership in research and policy have not yet been actualized. Suggested remedies include mentoring of the mentee in research, provision of designated grants for nursing research, acceptance of nurses as policy formulators rather than implementers among others. The small sample size informs the need for further study throughout the region. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurses have the capability to exercise influence directly or indirectly on health care goals. Dereliction in research and policy formulation could hinder the attainment of desired health care reforms due to absence of innovation in nursing practice and management.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ManagementSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207