MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180604670 · doi:10.1177/09697330211003222

The development of nurses’ foundational values

2021· article· en· W3180604670 on OpenAlexaff
Sastrawan Sastrawan, Jennifer Newton, Gabrielle Brand, Gulzar Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)CurriculumValue (mathematics)Health careProfessional developmentPsychologySociologyNursingEngineering ethicsPedagogyMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the ever-changing and complex healthcare environment, nurses encounter challenging situations that may involve a clash between their personal and professional values resulting in a profound impact on their practice. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of literature on how nurses develop their personal-professional values. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand how nurses develop their foundational values as the base for their value system. RESEARCH DESIGN: A constructivist grounded theory methodology was employed to collect multiple data sets, including face-to-face focus group and individual interviews, along with anecdote and reflective stories. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Fifty-four nurses working across various nursing settings in Indonesia were recruited to participate. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Ethics Committee, project approval number 1553. FINDINGS: Foundational values acquisition was achieved through family upbringing, professional nurse education and organisational/institutional values reinforcement. These values are framed through three reference points: religious lens, humanity perspective and professionalism. This framing results in a unique combination of personal-professional values that comprise nurses' values system. Values are transferred to other nurses either in a formal or informal way as part of one's professional responsibility and customary social interaction via telling and sharing in person or through social media. DISCUSSION: Values and ethics are inherently interweaved during nursing practice. Ethical and moral values are part of professional training, but other values are often buried in a hidden curriculum, and attained and activated through interactions during nurses' training. CONCLUSION: Developing a value system is a complex undertaking that involves basic social processes of attaining, enacting and socialising values. These processes encompass several intertwined entities such as the sources of values, the pool of foundational values, value perspectives and framings, initial value structures, and methods of value transference.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.361
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207