MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295813795 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v13n1p6

Factors influencing nursing competence of registered nurses in the European Union: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4295813795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Daniel Kellerer, Matthias Rohringer, Daniela Deufert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLCompetence (human resources)PsycINFONursingEuropean unionOperationalizationHealth careMEDLINENurse educationPsychologyNursing careMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: In the countries of the European Union, more than three million registered nurses take responsibility for health care in various acute- and long-term settings. The development of nursing competence and its continuous evaluation are part of the European strategy to ensure high-quality health care. Transnational standards in the education of nurses intend to ensure the advancement of competent nurses. However, competence is a multifactorial construct that does not solely rely on formal qualifications. Experience, contextual conditions, knowledge and skills as well as values, norms and rules are defined as critical components of competence. Thus, the aim of this scoping review was to identify factors that influence the nursing competence of RNs in countries of the European Union.Methods: A scoping review following the guidelines of Joanna Briggs Institute was conducted. Quantitative studies assessing nursing competence by psychometrically tested instruments and exploring respective influence factors were searched in electronically databases (Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Medline, DOAJ, ERIC, Academic Search Elite, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, CareLit). Extracted study results were deductively structured with reference to theoretically reasonable factors of competence. Results: A total of sixteen studies were included in this scoping review. Most studies were conducted in Northern European countries. Experience (operationalized as age and years of working as a registered nurse), professional nursing context, type of nursing education, non-formal acquisition of nursing-specific knowledge as well as experiencing workplace autonomy, high quality of care and empowerment all influence the competence of registered nurses.Conclusions: For most European countries, there are neither scientific data on nursing competence nor on its influencing factors available. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering factors that influence nursing competence in the course of systemic policy-making on nursing development as well as on organizational nursing governance. We strongly suggest the conduct of longitudinal studies in further countries of the European Union to gain further insights on nursing competence and to explore the impact of its influencing factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.604
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.052 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207