MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944135023 · doi:10.14574/ojrnhc.v19i1.523

Psychological impact of traumatic events in rural nursing practice: An Integrative review

2019· article· en· W2944135023 on OpenAlexaff
Sharleen Jahner, Kelly Penz, Norma J. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassion fatigueTraumatic stressNursingMedicineBurnoutPsychosocialStressorContext (archaeology)PsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rural and remote nurses who practice in acute care often deal with traumatic injury and death in isolated practice with limited psychosocial support. The majority of research in this area has been conducted within urban nursing populations or non-nursing disciplines. Caring for others who have experienced a traumatic event may place rural and remote nurses at a greater risk of negative psychological effects over time. Purpose: This integrative review will explore the evidence related to the potential negative psychological impact of caring for those who have experienced a traumatic event in the context of rural nursing practice. Method: An integrative review of four health and social science databases was conducted using the framework by Whittemore and Knafl (2005). Main search terms included rural and remote nursing, vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, compassion fatigue, trauma, and burnout. Articles published between 2006 and 2017 were identified and critiqued based on their scientific merit and applicability to rural nursing practice. Results: Nine publications were found regarding rural and remote nurses’ exposure to traumatic events, and the potential personal and professional impact of exposure. While occupational stress was evident within rural and remote practice, there is a lack of clarity on the traumatic stressors of greatest concern. Most notable was the limited application of a rural and remote nursing lens to explore specific events linked to trauma, and the diversity of concepts used to describe the impact of these experiences. Conclusion: There are few rural or remote studies that have explored the psychological impact of caring for others who have experienced traumatic events. Further research is necessary to explore the specific psychological impact experienced by rural and remote nurses being exposed to traumatic events over time and types of programs necessary to better support them to continue in their practice.  Keywords: rural, remote, nurses, trauma, vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, compassion fatigue, burnout DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14574/ojrnhc.v19i1.523 

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.506 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health CareSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207