A National Survey of Educational and Training Preferences and Practices for Public Health Nurses in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effective mix of public health professionals has been the focus of recent policies and literature. Information is limited on the preferences for training and continuing education of the Canadian Public Health Workforce. This information could assist in surge capacity efforts and help in evaluating the success of workforce development strategies and recruitment/retention efforts. METHOD: The Canadian Public Health Workforce Survey was conducted in 2015 by the Canadian Public Health Association in collaboration with the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). The survey was conducted to inform an ongoing evaluation of the PHAC's workforce development. This article reports on a subset of the survey: public health nurses (PHNs). RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was approximately 40% (2,075 participants); 470 respondents (22.7%) were PHNs. Challenges faced by PHNs to pursuing continuing education include a lack of targeted training, resources, and coordinated training efforts. CONCLUSION: The results provide insight into potential direction to support the work of PHNs in practice including a need for a coordinated approach to continuing education. Future educational strategies should consider tailored education strategies for PHNs. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2020;51(1):25-31.].
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".