Contextual factors of advanced practice nursing development: A network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to delineate the relationships between actors and contextual factors associated with the development of the advanced practice role in Catalonia. METHODS: A complementary data analysis was conducted based on the social network analysis (SNA) method. The primary study design was qualitative, descriptive and explanatory. Participants from diverse perspectives of practice, organization and external environment were engaged to participate in semi-structured focus groups. Data collection was conducted between March and May 2016 in Catalonia, Spain. Participants were asked to report on various dimensions of the role development context: understanding of the role, felt needs, perceived outcomes, barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Primary data analysis performed for 44 participants identified 71 related contextual factors associated with role development. Complementary network analysis revealed multiple relationships and agreements among participants and context-related themes. Professional roles and disciplines clustered around topics show consensus and the significance of topics. CONCLUSION: Understanding the level of interactions and consensus among participants and contextual factors will ultimately allow better insight into how complex contexts influence the development of advanced practice nursing in healthcare organizations. Significant, consensual contextual factors should be used to influence further development and implementation of new roles that affect patient care and outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".