MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160873740 · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00342

Strategies and interventions that foster clinical leadership among registered nurses: a scoping review protocol

2021· review· en· W3160873740 on OpenAlexaff
Chantille Isler, Joy Maddigan, Sandra P. Small, Kimberly Jarvis, Michelle Swab

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionNursingCornerstoneInclusion (mineral)Health careMedicineProtocol (science)Qualitative researchNursing Interventions ClassificationMEDLINEPsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to identify and describe strategies and interventions aimed at fostering registered nurses' clinical leadership in any clinical setting, identify the theories and/or frameworks that guide registered nurses' clinical leadership development, and describe the types of research conducted on this topic. INTRODUCTION: Registered nurse clinical leaders may be defined as staff nurses in clinical settings who influence and coordinate patients, families, and health care team members for the purpose of integrating care for positive patient outcomes. They have been described as expert clinicians, effective decision-makers, and relationship-focused professionals who build trust among patients, families, and health care colleagues to ensure the best possible patient care. Clinical nursing is the cornerstone of the nursing profession. Registered nurses' clinical leadership is considered critical to the health of patients and to the advancement of nursing practice. Hence, it is important to understand strategies and interventions for fostering this leadership. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will include any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies that have registered nurse participants practicing in any clinical setting globally and that examined strategies and interventions to foster registered nurses' clinical leadership. Besides primary research studies, we will also include reviews. METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted using JBI methodology. Academic databases and sources of gray literature will be searched for published and unpublished studies. Screening and full-text review of accessed records will be conducted to determine alignment with the inclusion criteria. For records that meet the inclusion criteria, data will be extracted, mapped, and presented in a table. A narrative summary will describe how the tabulated results addressed the review questions. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration: https://osf.io/hjfkd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.013
Bibliometrics0.0260.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.680
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.074 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207