MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322617685 · doi:10.1177/08445621231160478

Rural Home Care Nursing During COVID-19

2023· article· en· W4322617685 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michelle Pavloff, Mary Ellen Labrecque, Jill Bally, Shelley Kirychuk, Gerri Lasiuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingPandemicNursingWork (physics)Hindsight biasMedicineCritical care nursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Rural areaPsychologyHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be a challenging time for the nursing profession globally. Research indicates that the care of patients with COVID-19 has caused significant psychological stress for nurses. Although much of the world's attention has been on nurses working in emergency departments and intensive care units, the pandemic also posed significant challenges for nurses providing home care services in rural communities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to describe the experiences of rural Canadian home care nurses during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The data for this analysis was derived from a study that explored the continuing education needs of rural home care nurses. Since the data collection for the primary objective occurred in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 related themes were created using interpretive description methodology. Snowball and purposive sampling were used to recruit rural home care registered nurses who were employed in the central and southern areas of a western Canadian province. RESULTS: Six themes were constructed from the data including: Nurses Must Work, Constant State of Flux, Threatened Safety, Loss of Learning Opportunities, Fearing the Unknown, and Hindsight is Easy. CONCLUSION: The experiences of rural home care nurses during COVID-19 reflects the chaos, uncertainty, and fear that was felt globally. Based on the findings of this study, recommendations for future pandemic planning are suggested.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207