Advanced practice nursing roles in Arab countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore and synthesize evidence regarding the advanced practice nursing roles in Arab countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region. INTRODUCTION: Many countries have witnessed an increase in the number and types of advanced practice nursing roles. The literature has documented many positive patient outcomes associated with care provided by advanced practice nurses. The International Council of Nurses claims that advanced practice nursing is country-sensitive. Despite the availability of international literature that explores advanced practice nursing roles globally, little attention has been given to advanced practice nursing roles in Arab countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies related to advanced practice nursing roles, such as the historical development, role title, regulations, entry level education, role implementation, and outcomes, in Arab countries in the Eastern Mediterranean region. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search will be completed for both published and non-published literature using CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed (NLM), PsycINFO, Embase (Elsevier), Nursing and Allied Health (ProQuest), Scopus (Elsevier), and websites such as Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, International Council of Nurses' Nurse Practitioner/Advanced Practice Nursing Network, World Health Organization regional office for the Eastern Mediterranean, and nursing associations and ministries of health in Arab countries. The search will include literature published in Arabic and English, from the inception of databases to present.
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 | 0.069 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.008 |
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".