Communication tools and sources of education and information: a national survey of rural and remote nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined accessibility of communication tools in the workplace, use of education to update nursing knowledge, and use of information to make specific decisions in practice among registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in rural and remote communities in Canada. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the cross-sectional survey, "Nursing Practice in Rural and Remote Canada II," of regulated nurses practicing in all provinces and territories of Canada. Data were collected from April 2014 to August 2015. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 3,822 of 9,622 nurses (40% response), and the present analysis was conducted with a subsample of 2,827 nurses. High-speed Internet was the most accessible communication tool, and nurses used "online/electronic education" more often than "in-person education" to update their nursing knowledge. Internet searches were used more often than several other online/electronic sources to inform decision making. Compared to LPNs, RNs reported greater workplace access to most communication tools and greater use of online/electronic education as well as information sources in online/electronic and print formats. Compared to nurses in community-based health care and hospital settings, nurses in long-term care settings reported lower access to most communication tools, lower use of online/electronic and in-person education, and lower use of online/electronic information. CONCLUSIONS: Access to continuing education and up-to-date information is important for effective patient care. This study points to a need for further research on the continuing education and information needs of rural and remote RNs and LPNs, and on their capacity to incorporate and apply new knowledge in 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".