MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384559220 · doi:10.1111/jan.15775

Advanced practice nursing in Europe—Results from a pan‐European survey of 35 countries

2023· article· en· W4384559220 on OpenAlexaff
Paul De Raeve, Patricia M. Davidson, Jochen Bergs, Michelle Patch, Susan M. Jack, Adriana Castro‐Ayala, Andreas Xyrichis, Wendy Preston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsOperationalizationCLARITYComputer-assisted web interviewingNurse educationNursing researchNursingLegislationThematic analysisMedicineMedical educationPolitical scienceQualitative researchSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To report the results of a mapping exercise by the European Federation of Nurses on current advanced practice nursing frameworks and developments across Europe. DESIGN: Online, cross-sectional, questionnaire study. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed among 35 national nurses' associations across Europe in March 2021. The questionnaire solicited input on 60 items concerning key features of advanced practice nursing, intending to map existing developments and better understand the current state of advanced practice nursing in Europe. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, including counts and percentages, tabulation; open-text responses were handled with thematic synthesis techniques. RESULTS: The definition, sense-making and operationalization of advanced practice nursing vary across Europe. Important variations were noted in the definition and requirements of advanced practice nursing, resulting in different views on the competencies and scope of practice associated with this role. Importantly, the level of education and training required to qualify and practice as an advanced practice nurse varies across European countries. Furthermore, only 11 countries reported the existence of a national legislation establishing minimum educational requirements. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in how countries define advanced practice nursing and how it is regulated at academic and practice levels. More research is needed to clarify whether this variation results from designing models of advanced practice nursing that work in different contexts; and what impact a standardized regulatory framework could have to grow the volume of advanced practice nurses across Europe. IMPACT: The current paper exposes the lack of clarity on the development and implementation of advanced practice nursing across Europe. We found significant variation in the definition, recognition, regulation and education of advanced practice nurses. Our data are essential to policymakers, professional associations and employers to ensure a coordinated and systematic effort in the consistency and ongoing development of advanced practice nurses across Europe. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution applied; the participants were national nurses' associations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations101
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207