MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385416707 · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.151

Vers des stratégies de plaidoyer structurel : une étude sur le processus de plaidoyer chez les infirmières en santé communautaire

2023· article· en· W4385416707 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Geneviève McCready, Hélène Laperrière

Bibliographic record

VenueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to reduce social inequities in health, nurses need to move from patient advocacy to policy advocacy. Literature reports many barriers when nurses try to address the structural level of policy advocacy. Very little empirical research exists to show how nurses respond to these barriers and the resulting impact on the effectiveness of policy advocacy. This study characterized the types and the process of advocacy practiced by community health nurses. A collaborative ethnography with 21 nurses showed that their policy advocacy was often dismissed, leading to negative consequences such as less policy advocacy attempts, changes in their clinical evaluation with patients and personal experiences of moral distress. We argue that structural change will only occur when collective advocacy will be supported by organizations, therefore reducing inequities that affect both community health and working conditions of nurses. Afin de réduire les iniquités sociales de santé, les infirmières doivent dépasser le plaidoyer axé sur les individus en investissant des stratégies de plaidoyer ciblant les structures et les politiques. Dans cet article, nous soutenons que de ne pas exercer de plaidoyer structurel peut amener des conséquences néfastes pour les infirmières elles-mêmes et les communautés qu’elles desservent. Cette étude caractérise les types et le processus de plaidoyer exercés par les infirmières en santé communautaire. Une ethnographie collaborative avec 21 infirmières montre que leurs tentatives de plaidoyer structurel étaient ignorées, décourageant les tentatives futures, entraînant des changements dans leur évaluation clinique et des expériences de détresse morale. Nous argumentons que le changement structurel surviendra seulement lorsque les stratégies de plaidoyer seront collectivisées et soutenues par les organisations de santé, réduisant ainsi les iniquités affectant à la fois la santé communautaire et les conditions de travail des infirmières.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWitness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing DiscourseSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207