MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366979791 · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2023.101970

American Academy of Nursing Expert Panel Consensus Statement on leveraging equity in policy to improve recognition and treatment of mental health, substance use disorders, and nurse suicide

2023· article· en· W4366979791 on OpenAlexaff
JoEllen Schimmels, Carla J. Groh, Michael Neft, Lucia D. Wocial, Cara J. Young, Judy E. Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Outlook · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use Services
FundersGillings School of Public HealthAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention
KeywordsNursingMental healthMedicineOccupational health nursingHealth careEquity (law)Call to actionHealth policyPsychologyPsychiatryPolitical sciencePublic healthBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rates of nurse mental health and substance use disorders are high. Heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses are challenged to care for patients in ways that often jeopardize their own health and increase risks for their families. These trends exacerbate the epidemic of suicide in nursing underscored by several professional organization clarion calls to nurses' risk. Principles of health equity and trauma-informed care dictate urgent action. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus among clinical and policy leaders from Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing about actions to address risks to mental health and factors contributing to nurse suicide. Recommendations for mitigating barriers drew from the CDC's 2022 Suicide Prevention Resource for Action strategies to guide the nursing community to inform policy, education, research, and clinical practice with the goals of greater health promotion, risk reduction, and sustainment of nurses' health and well-being are provided.

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0220.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNursing OutlookSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207