Visibility of Community Nursing Within an Administrative Health Classification System: Evaluation of Content Coverage (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The World Health Organization is in the process of developing an international administrative classification for health called the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI). The purpose of ICHI is to provide a tool for supporting intervention reporting and analysis at a global level for policy development and beyond. Nurses represent the largest resource carrying out clinical interventions in any health system. With the shift in nursing care from hospital to community settings in many countries, it is important to ensure that community nursing interventions are present in any international health information system. Thus, an investigation into the extent to which community nursing interventions were covered in ICHI was needed. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study were to examine the extent to which International Classification for Nursing Practice (ICNP) community nursing interventions were represented in the ICHI administrative classification system, to identify themes related to gaps in coverage, and to support continued advancements in understanding the complexities of knowledge representation in standardized clinical terminologies and classifications. METHODS This descriptive study used a content mapping approach in 2 phases in 2018. A total of 187 nursing intervention codes were extracted from the ICNP Community Nursing Catalogue and mapped to ICHI. In phase 1, 2 coders completed independent mapping activities. In phase 2, the 2 coders compared each list and discussed concept matches until consensus on ICNP-ICHI match and on mapping relationship was reached. RESULTS The initial percentage agreement between the 2 coders was 47% (n=88), but reached 100% with consensus processes. After consensus was reached, 151 (81%) of the community nursing interventions resulted in an ICHI match. A total of 36 (19%) of community nursing interventions had no match to ICHI content. A total of 100 (53%) community nursing interventions resulted in a broader ICHI code, 9 (5%) resulted in a narrower ICHI code, and 42 (23%) were considered equivalent. ICNP concepts that were not represented in ICHI were thematically grouped into the categories family and caregivers, death and dying, and case management. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the content mapping yielded similar results to other content mapping studies in nursing. However, it also found areas of missing concept coverage, difficulties with interterminology mapping, and further need to develop mapping methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.109 | 0.374 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".