Nurses’ role in health promotion and prevention: A critical interpretive synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Role confusion is hampering the development of nurses' capacity for health promotion and prevention. Addressing this requires discussion to reach agreement among nurses, managers, co-workers, professional associations, academics and organisations about the nursing activities in this field. Forming a sound basis for this discussion is essential. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To provide a description of the state of nursing health promotion and prevention practice expressed in terms of activities classifiable under the Ottawa Charter and to reveal the misalignments between this portrayal and the ideal one proposed by the Ottawa Charter. METHODS: A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted between December 2018 and May 2019. The PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Dialnet databases were searched. Sixty-two papers were identified. The relevant data were extracted using a pro-forma, and the reviewers performed an integrative synthesis. The ENTREQ reporting guidelines were used for this review. RESULTS: Thirty synthetic constructs were developed into the following synthesising arguments: (a) addressing individuals' lifestyles versus developing their personal skills; (b) focusing on environmental hazards versus creating supportive environments; (c) action on families versus strengthening communities; (d) promoting community partnerships versus strengthening community action; and (e) influencing policies versus building healthy public policy. CONCLUSIONS: There are notable misalignments between nurses' current practice in health promotion and prevention and the Ottawa Charter's actions and strategies. This may be explained by the nurses' lack of understanding of health promotion and prevention and political will, research methodological flaws, the predominance of a biomedical perspective within organisations and the lack of organisational prioritisation for health promotion and prevention.
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 | 0.160 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".