MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200628833 · doi:10.1111/jan.15015

The influence of community health on hospitals attainment of Magnet designation: Implications for policy and practice

2021· article· en· W3200628833 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila A. Boamah, Hanadi Hamadi, Chloe Bailey, Emma Apatu, Aaron Spaulding

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOddsCredentialingExcellenceOdds ratioOrdered logitHealth careMedicaidGovernment (linguistics)Logistic regressionRanking (information retrieval)MedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineNursingPolitical scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To determine if there is an association between better County Health Rankings and the increased odds of a hospital gaining Magnet designation in subsequent years (2014-2019) compared with counties with lower rankings. BACKGROUND: The Magnet hospital model is recognized to have a great effect on nurses, patients and organizational outcomes. Although Magnet hospital designation is a well-established structural marker for nursing excellence, the effect of County Health Rankings and subsequent hospital achievement of Magnet status is unknown. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional quantitative approach was adopted for this study. METHODS: Data were derived from 2010 to 2019 U.S. County Health Rankings, American Hospital Association, and American Nursing Credentialing Center databases. Logistic regression models were utilized to determine associations between county rankings for health behaviours, clinical care, social and economic factors, physical environment and counties with a new Magnet hospital after 2014. RESULTS: Counties with the worst rankings for clinical care and socio-economic status had reduced odds of obtaining a Magnet hospital designation compared with best-ranking counties. While middle-ranking counties for the physical environment ranking had increased odds of having Magnet designation compared with best-ranking counties. Additionally, having an increased percent of government non-federal hospital or a higher percentage of critical access hospitals in the county reduced the odds of having a Magnet-designated facility after 2014. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the important associations between Magnet-designated facilities' location and the health of its surrounding counties. This study is the first to examine the relationship between County Health Rankings and a hospital's likelihood of obtaining Magnet status and points to the need for future research to explore outcomes of care previously identified as improved in Magnet-designated hospitals. IMPLICATIONS: Recognizing the benefits of Magnet facilities, it is important for health care leaders and policy makers to seek opportunities to promote centres of excellence in higher need communities through policy and financial intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.432 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207