MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991449957 · doi:10.3912/ojin.vol21no01man05

Internationally Educated Nurses’ and Their Contributions to the Patient Experience

2016· article· en· W2991449957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ndolo Njie-Mokonya

Bibliographic record

VenueOJIN The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceImmigrationCultural diversityEthnic groupNursingHealth careDiversity (politics)Phenomenology (philosophy)Qualitative researchCultural competenceMedicinePopulationPsychologySociologyPolitical sciencePedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internationally educated nurses (IEN) are a group who reflect Canada’s diverse population as a result of rising immigration trends. There is increasing diversity of the general population in Canada and health service disparities exist. Reducing these disparities among the healthcare workforce and the patients they care for is important to meet language and other cultural needs of patients from different ethnic backgrounds. This article describes a study that examined internationally educated nurses’ transition experiences in the field of nursing with the objective of describing their unique contributions to the patient care experience. A review of the literature provides background information, followed by the study methods, findings, and discussion. Descriptive phenomenology guided this qualitative study that included 11 participants. Findings from this study illustrate how IENs perceive themselves as an asset to nursing and patient care. Implications for the future of nursing education, practice, research, and administration are offered. Healthcare providers that reflect the diversity of Canada’s population and can offer unique cultural perspective have potential to improve the patient experience during a hospital stay.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.455 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOJIN The Online Journal of Issues in NursingSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207