Nursing care and health promotion competencies in cardiometabolic diseases: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to map, in the scientific literature, nursing care and health promotion competencies in cardiometabolic diseases in the light of the Galway Consensus.Methods: This is a scoping review carried out in accordance with the JBI recommendations, from November 2021 to January 2022, in five databases. The studies were analyzed according to the Galway Consensus competency domains: catalysing change, leadership, assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation, advocacy and partnerships.Results: A total of 85 studies were included in the review, and existing scientific production points out that nurses carry out comprehensive actions, which involve educational interventions, follow-up of nursing at home and at the health institution for individuals/families, health service management and partnership articulation to guarantee longitudinal, comprehensive, qualified and network-integrated care. The most highlighted domain was catalysing change, followed by assessment, planning, implementation, partnerships, advocacy and evaluation. Care such as health education, guidance on healthy eating habits, physical activity, weight reduction, smoking cessation and foot care/shoe use stood out, in addition to guidance on drug treatment, counseling, care/support for the family, home visits, follow-up by telephone and referral to a nutritionist and other professionals.Conclusions: It is necessary to strengthen competencies such as leadership and health advocacy in health promoting nurses, considering that few studies related to such themes were identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".