Fundamental Care's state of knowledge around the world: Where are we now? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate and describe the current state of knowledge about Fundamental Care in terms of population, contexts, concepts and gaps. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO and EMBASE databases were searched in April 2021 for eligible literature, published from January 2010, onwards. REVIEW METHODS: This scoping review was built around the recommendations of Peters et al. (2020 version). Two researchers conducted the literature search, and three researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies' data, using the eligibility criteria and the review questions as a guide. RESULTS: The search yielded 763 records, of which 107 were included. Results are presented under seven subheadings: (a) Countries and Continents, (b) Context, (c) Research Design, (d) Publishing/Journal, (e) Participants and Population, (f) Keywords and (g) Fundamental of Care Framework and Practice Process. All the retrieved articles describe the current state of knowledge about Fundamental Care in terms of population, contexts, concepts and gaps. CONCLUSION: This scoping review highlighted the elevated number of articles that have been published since the beginning of the work on Fundamental Care, 10 years ago. The included articles are related to different dimensions of research, practice and teaching and to the Fundamentals of Nursing Care, but also to nursing theory. Finally, most of the articles had a nursing focus. IMPACT: The results of this scoping review allow us to highlight the work from the past 10 years. This may be of interest to learn more about the research surrounding Fundamental Care. This scoping review allows us to better target the theoretical and empirical developments to focus on in the coming years.
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 | 0.059 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".