A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the World Health Organization called for the expansion and greater recognition of all nursing roles, including advanced practice nurses (APNs), to better meet patient care needs. As defined by the International Council of Nurses (ICN), the two most common APN roles include nurse practitioners (NPs) and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs). They help ensure care to communities as well as patients and families with acute, chronic or complex conditions. Moreover, APNs support providers to deliver high quality care and improve access to services. Currently, there is much variability in the use of advanced practice nursing roles globally. A clearer understanding of the roles that are in place across the globe, and how they are being used will support greater role harmonization, and inform global priorities for advanced practice nursing education, research, and policy reform. OBJECTIVE: To identify current gaps in advanced practice nursing research globally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review of systematic reviews will provide a description of the current state of the research, including gaps, on advanced practice nursing globally. We will include reviews that examine APNs, NPs or CNSs using recognized role definitions. We will search the CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, HealthStar, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Joanna Briggs Institute, and Web of Science electronic databases for reviews published from January 2011 onwards, with no restrictions on jurisdiction or language. We will search the grey literature and hand search the reference lists of all relevant reviews to identify additional studies. We will extract country, patient, provider, health system, educational, and policy/scope of practice data. We will assess the quality of each included review using the CASP criteria, and summarize their findings. This review of systematic reviews protocol was developed following the PRISMA-P recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278532.
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 | 0.019 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".