Engagement of nurse practitioners in primary health care in northern British Columbia: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) have been regulated primary care providers in British Columbia since 2005; however, many practices and contributions of NPs, especially those in northern or rural regions, remain unarticulated in primary health care. The objective of this study was to evaluate NP practices in the context of providing primary health care in northern BC. METHODS: This was a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods study. We recruited NP participants working in northern BC; recruitment and data collection occurred between April and June 2018. Participants completed the validated 28-item Primary Health Care Engagement (PHCE) Scale to assess their perceptions of their workplace with 8 attributes of primary health care (quality improvement, community participation, patient-centred care, accessibility, intersectoral team, interdisciplinary collaboration, continuity and population orientation). We also interviewed NPs about their everyday practice. Transcribed data from the interviews were analyzed interpretively. RESULTS: In total, 13 of 30 (43%) eligible NPs participated in the survey and interview. The PHCE Scale results showed that all NPs perceived their workplaces to be highly engaged in patient-centred care, but none reported their workplaces as accessible. Interview data were organized into 5 headings which described how NPs see patients who are medically and socially complex, address inequities in access, practice collaboratively, address local service gaps and improve patient abilities to access care. INTERPRETATION: In interprofessional primary health care teams, NPs are key members and attend to both direct patient care and broader social conditions affecting health. Nurse practitioners can help accelerate advancements to deliver responsive community-based primary health care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".