Integration of primary care education into undergraduate nursing programs: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map literature related to primary care education in undergraduate nursing programs and to describe the attributes and extent of primary care education. INTRODUCTION: Primary care is a model of first-contact, continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated health care. Registered nurses are integral in successful collaborative team models of primary care. However, it is unclear how undergraduate nursing programs offer opportunities to learn about nursing practice within primary care settings. A better understanding of the attributes and extent of primary care education in undergraduate nursing programs will direct research, inform teaching-learning, and develop a stronger primary care nursing workforce. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider articles that include faculty/administrators, preceptors, or students of nursing programs that qualify graduates for entry-level registered nursing practice. Articles that report on undergraduate teaching-learning related to primary care will also be considered. Practical nursing, advanced practice, and post-licensure programs will be excluded. Teaching-learning related to settings other than primary care will also be excluded. METHODS: The Framework of Effective Teaching-Learning in Clinical Education will be the organizing framework for this scoping review. A 3-step search strategy will be followed to identify published and unpublished literature. Articles published in English or French will be included. Data extracted from eligible articles will include details on the study design/method, participants, context, type of teaching-learning activity, attributes associated with dimensions of the teaching-learning environment, and relevant outcomes. The results will be reported in tabular and/or diagrammatic format, accompanied by a narrative summary. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/cw5r3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".