Did I learn enough to practice? Reflections of new nurse practitioner graduates in providing sexual and reproductive health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Office of Population Health have published guidelines for providing family planning services. PURPOSE: The study explores how nurse practitioners (NPs) perceived their preparation and competency in providing a range of sexual and reproductive health care in their first two years of community-based practice. METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION: Qualitative. Thematic analysis used to analyze data from structured and open-ended interview questions. SAMPLE: Through snowballing recruitment, 35 NPs participated in interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were most confident and likely to provide contraceptive and sexually transmitted infection services. Participants felt less prepared to provide male sexual health and care to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex+ population. Nurse practitioners expressed interest in building skills with discussing healthy sexuality across the life span, specifically postmenopausal sexual concerns, teen sexuality, trauma-informed care related to sexual violence, and early pregnancy decision making. Some participants had little preparation in early pregnancy decision making/options counseling. Faculty need to examine barriers to teaching these skills because the curriculum should address all legal pregnancy options, including discussing the NP's professional obligations. More preparation was needed in the clinical management of erectile dysfunction, polycystic ovary syndrome, herpes, syphilis, abnormal uterine bleeding, dyspareunia, pelvic pain, miscarriage management, and how to discuss prostate cancer screening. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The recommendations of the quality family planning, with additions, form a sound basis for sexual and reproductive health care standards, education, and clinical practice, should be part of NP education.
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 | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".