The added value of the nurse practitioner: An evolutionary concept analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Nurse practitioners' added value is often mentioned in publications, but there is no consensus on what value is being added, what value is being added to, and in comparison with what can be considered to be an added value. A concept analysis was conducted to clarify the attributes, antecedents and meaning and better understand the Nurse practitioners' added value. DESIGN: Rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis. METHODS: We selected 16 studies from CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and Medline to conduct a thematic analysis, considering the date, location and discipline of publications. RESULTS: Nurse practitioners' added value include: skills and competencies, activities performed, positive outcomes, and positive role perceptions, and antecedents and consequences were also identified. Nurse practitioners' added value is context-dependent and is often understood by comparing it to a context prior to implementation or other professional roles.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it