Nurses’ Attitudes Toward the Importance of Families in Nursing Care: A Multinational Comparative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine nurses' attitudes about the importance of family in nursing care from an international perspective. We used a cross-sectional design. Data were collected online using the Families' Importance in Nursing Care-Nurses' Attitudes (FINC-NA) questionnaire from a convenience sample of 740 registered nurses across health care sectors from Sweden, Ontario, Canada, and Hong Kong, China. Mean levels of attitudes were compared across countries using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple regression was used to identify factors associated with nurses' attitudes and to test for interactions by country. Factors associated with nurse attitudes included country, age, gender, and several practice areas. On average, nurses working in Hong Kong had less positive attitudes compared with Canada and Sweden. The effects of predictors on nurses' attitudes did not vary by country. Knowledge of nurses' attitudes could lead to the development of tailored interventions that facilitate nurse-family partnerships in 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it