MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213976461 · doi:10.1186/s12912-021-00721-0

The meaning of nursing practice for nurses who are retired yet continue to work in a rural or remote community

2021· article· en· W3213976461 on OpenAlex
Martha MacLeod, Lela Zimmer, Julie Kosteniuk, Kelly Penz, Norma J. Stewart

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNursingWorkforceWork (physics)Flexibility (engineering)Nursing shortageMedicineNursing AssistantNursing researchNurse educationPolitical scienceNursing homesManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although much research has focused on nurses' retirement intentions, little is known about nurses who formally retire yet continue to practice, particularly in rural and remote settings where mobilization of all nurses is needed to assure essential health services. To optimize practice and sustain the workforce stretched thin by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to understand what it means for retired registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) to work after retirement. This study explored what nursing practice means for RNs and LPNs who have formally retired but continue to practice in rural and remote communities. METHODS: A pan-Canadian cross-sectional survey conducted in 2014-2015 of nurses in rural and remote Canada provided data for analysis. Textual responses from 82 RNs and 19 LPNs who indicated they had retired but were occasionally employed in nursing were interpreted hermeneutically. RESULTS: Retired nurses who continued to practice took on new challenges as well as sought opportunities to continue to learn, grow, and give back. Worklife flexibility was important, including having control over working hours. Nurses' everyday practice was inextricably tied up with their lives in rural and remote communities, with RNs emphasizing serving their communities and LPNs appreciating community recognition and the family-like character of their work settings. CONCLUSIONS: Retired nurses who continue to work in nursing see retirement as the next phase in their profession and a vital way of engaging with their rural and remote communities. This study counters the conventional view of retaining retired nurses only to combat nursing shortages and alleviate a knowledge drain from the workplace. Rural and remote nurses who retire and continue working contribute to their workplaces and communities in important and innovative ways. They can be characterized as dedicated, independent, and resilient. Transitioning to retirement in rural and remote practice can be re-imagined in ways that involve both the community and the workplace. Supporting work flexibility for retired nurses while facilitating their practice, technological acumen, and professional development, can allow retired nurses to contribute their joy of being a nurse along with their extensive knowledge and in-depth experience of nursing and the community.

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 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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.340 · 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