MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386945359 · doi:10.1111/inr.12884

Response and innovations of advanced practice nurses during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4386945359 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Ziegler, Ruth Martin‐Misener, Sarah Rietkoetter, Andrea Baumann, Ivy Lynn Bougeault, Nikolina Kovačević, Minna Miller, Jessica N. Moseley, Frances Kam Yuet Wong, Denise Bryant‐Lukosius

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Nursing Review · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthMentorshipPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careNursingChecklistBest practiceMedicineMEDLINETelemedicineEvidence-based practiceMedical educationPsychologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Identify and map international evidence regarding innovations led by or involving advanced practice nurses in response to COVID-19. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 necessitated unprecedented innovation in the organization and delivery of healthcare. Although advanced practice nurses have played a pivotal role during the pandemic, evidence of their contributions to innovations has not been synthesized. Evidence is needed to inform policies, practices, and research about the optimal use of advanced practice nurses. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted and reported using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and December 2021. Papers were included that focused on innovations emerging in response to COVID-19 and involved advanced practice nurses. RESULTS: Fifty-one articles were included. Four themes were identified including telehealth, supporting and transforming care, multifaceted approaches, and provider education. Half of the articles used brief and mostly noncomparative approaches to evaluate innovations. CONCLUSION: This is the first synthesis of international evidence examining the contributions of advanced practice nurses during the pandemic. Advanced practice nurses provided leadership for the innovation needed to rapidly respond to healthcare needs resulting from COVID-19. Innovations challenged legislative restrictions on practice, enabled implementation of telehealth and new models of care, and promoted evidence-informed and patient-centered care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Advanced practice nurses led, designed, implemented, and evaluated innovations in response to COVID-19. They facilitated the use of telehealth, supported or transformed models of care, and enabled health providers through education, mentorship, and mental health support. IMPLICATION FOR POLICY: Advanced practice nurses are a critical resource for innovation and health system improvement. Permanent removal of legislative and regulatory barriers to their full scope of practice is needed.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Nursing ReviewSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207