Nurses’ Knowledge, Attitudes, Confidence, and Practices with Genetics and Genomics: A Theory-Informed Integrative Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As key healthcare providers, nurses require genomic competency to fulfil their professional obligations in the genomic era. Prior research suggests that nurses have limited competency with genomics-informed practice. Concepts in the Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, and attributes of innovation adopters) provide a framework to understand the process of adoption of innovations, such as genomics, across organizations. We aim to synthesize what is known about the adoption of genomics across nursing within the DOI framework to identify gaps and opportunities to enact sustained adoption of genomics in nursing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An integrative literature review, following Whittemore and Knafl's five steps, will be conducted to evaluate qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method primary studies that meet inclusion and exclusion criteria. The MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Sociological Abstracts electronic databases will be searched in addition to the ancestry search method. Two researchers will perform independent screening of studies, quality appraisal using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, and data analysis using the narrative synthesis method. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Findings in this review could be used to develop theory- and evidence-informed strategies to support the sustained adoption of genomics in nursing.
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 | 0.118 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.009 |
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".