Transgender people in the nursing discourse: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To integrate and analyse the literature produced by nurses in terms of care, education and understanding of the reality of transgender (trans) people. DESIGN: An integrative review methodology guided by the framework proposed by Whittemore and Knafl. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy was applied in the following databases: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL, as well as in Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde, during February and March 2021, with no time frame. REVIEW METHODS: The references found were assessed according to the eligibility criteria established. The information of the articles included was extracted, and a thematic analysis was performed to synthesize the review findings. RESULTS: The searches in the databases yielded 2859 articles; 985 after removing duplicates, and 33 articles were included in this review. Three major themes were identified: (1) Understanding the trans universe through the trans perspective; (2) Understanding health and nursing care for trans people; and (3) Trans women as the focus of health and nursing care. The themes evidenced in the lens of nurses and clients the importance of nursing training at all levels to prepare professionals on how to provide culturally competent nursing care for this population and reduce healthcare inequities. CONCLUSION: Nurses must work to provide a space for convergence and enhancement of the rights of trans people and cease to be a verticalized care model. To such end, it is necessary to devise places and possibilities to teach and learn, to construct and reconstruct a culturally competent nursing care. IMPACT: This review highlighted the current knowledge and identified gaps in the understanding of nurses, health professionals and students about the experience lived by trans people, resulting from the lack of training and continuing education of these professionals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".