Le transfert des connaissances en soins de plaies chez les infirmières : une revue intégrative des écrits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : Wound care represents a public health issue and is an important concern for nursing care.Context : Despite the availability of best practice recommendations and clinical practice guidelines, there is a lack of use of this evidence in clinical practice.Objectives : The aim of this integrative review is to identify the barriers to nurses’ optimal knowledge transfer in wound care.Method : An integrative literature review based on Whittemore and Knalf’s (2005) methodology was conducted ; six databases were searched.Results : Of the 82 articles that were retrieved, 13 were retained for analysis. They were all published in English. The literature highlights a theory–practice gap in wound care. Barriers related to knowledge, attitudes, and environmental factors contribute to this gap.Discussion : Nursing could benefit from interventions to improve its role in wound care. The perspectives of new graduate nurses as well as nurses working in rural healthcare settings were limited.Conclusion : A strategic plan, adapted to the situation of each healthcare facility, could improve the quality of wound care practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".