[Research in Italian nursing practice: an extensive review of literature].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify orientations in Italian nursing research regarding nursing practice, highlighting strengths, needs for improvement, as well as suggestions and recommendations for promoting the future development of nursing knowledge. METHOD: An extensive review of the literature was conducted (scoping review) by consulting the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Biosis and Scopus, for the time interval between January 2006 and July 2016. RESULTS: Out of a total of 5635 publications, 35 were identified as relevant to the research question. These highlighted the changes implemented by nurses in Italy through their professional actions according to the best available evidence, especially since 2011/2012. Many publications relate to the implementation of new technical procedures or educational systems for patients, but there is a lack of studies that examine the effectiveness of nursing care and its effects on patients. Many studies do not belong within a program of research or larger projects, and virtually none involve participation in international research teams. With regard to the clinical environments in which the studies were conducted, the majority involved hospitals and the focus was mainly on patients in an acute phase of an illness. Few studies have investigated persons with chronic illnesses, the elderly or have been conducted in long-term care settings such as nursing homes. Another finding identified in this review is the prevalence of quantitative studies, with descriptive study designs, the use of questionnaires that were often created ad hoc, and the recruitment of samples from 'convenience' populations. These findings highlight the need to further review orientations in the Italian nursing research literature, focusing attention on emerging clinical priorities. This should be done through a process that balances the needs of nurses and with those the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Italian nursing researchers tend to focus their investigations on technical and educational topics. Theoretical or philosophical frameworks are almost completely missing in the literature, highlighting the need for more work in this area. In most cases, Italian researchers do not seem to follow research tracks based on research priorities, highlighting the need to review practice settings to identify areas that need to be developed, explored or consolidated. For Italian nurses, research is an area that is still under development and consolidation, but with strong potential for the future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".