MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205994054 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055356

Measured and perceived impacts of evidence-based leadership in nursing: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

2021· article· en· W3205994054 on OpenAlexaff
Maritta Välimäki, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp, Jaakko Varpula, Gaoming Liu, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen, Shuang Hu, Xianhong Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersTurun YliopistoCentral South University
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)NursingNursing researchSystematic reviewMEDLINEAlternative medicineFamily medicineMedical educationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the abundance of existing literature on evidence-based nursing practice, knowledge regarding evidence-based leadership, that is, leadership supported by an evidence-based approach, is lacking. Our aim is to conduct a mixed-methods systematic review with qualitative and quantitative studies to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurses and nurse leaders and their performance as well as on organisational and clinical outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the following databases with no year limit or language restrictions: CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Embase (Elsevier), PsycINFO (EBSCO), PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science. In addition, the databases for prospectively registered trials and other systematic reviews will be screened. We will include articles using any type of research design as long as the study includes a component of an evidence-based leadership approach. Three reviewers will independently screen all titles, abstracts and full-text articles and two reviewers will extract the data according to the appropriate checklists. The quality of each study will be appraised using specific appraisal tool fitting in study design used in each study. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) grid, PRISMA Protocols, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis and ENTREQ will guide the study process and reporting. Outcomes related to individual or group performance of nurses or nurse managers regarding leadership skills (e.g., communication skills), organisational outcomes (e.g., work environment, costs) and clinical outcomes (e.g., patient quality of life, treatment satisfaction) will be extracted and synthesised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not include empirical data, and therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and in a conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021259624.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.817
GPT teacher head0.703
Teacher spread0.114 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations53
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207