Leadership in healthcare: a bibliometric analysis of 100 most influential publications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim We analysed the 100 most influential articles on leadership in healthcare via a bibliometric analysis to better understand categories and topics in leadership science and their relationship to healthcare. Leadership in healthcare is ever evolving and needs to be robust like any another profession. Methods A bibliometric analysis was performed. Articles were ranked by citation counts and three independent reviewers screened the abstracts for inclusion. Common themes were categorised. Results Citations for articles ranged from 53 to 487 and were published across 50 journals. Articles focused primarily on three leadership subjects: team building, quality improvement and healthcare delivery. Of healthcare provider groups, articles were directed to or concerning primarily: nursing, academic medicine and critical care medicine. Conclusions We identified gaps in healthcare leadership development literature. There is an opportunity to effectively identify areas of interest and demand for organised leadership education and training.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.225 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it