MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387392332 · doi:10.1177/10784535231195426

Uptake of Innovations in Nursing: The Necessity for Implementation Science

2023· article· en· W4387392332 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursing practiceClinical PracticeBridge (graph theory)Process (computing)Nursing researchNursingNursing scienceMedicineEngineering ethicsMedical educationComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Innovations are critical for improving clinical practice and nursing education, and for enhancing learning and practice change for frontline nurses and nursing students. Continuous innovation for delivering safe care and improving patient outcomes is needed. Merely demonstrating the effectiveness of research innovations is not enough to promote their uptake and use in practice. A 2021 study in cancer research reported that moving research into practice takes about 15 years. Implementation science, a systemic process of identifying the most relevant approaches to move research into practice, has emerged as an effective way to bridge the research-practice gap. The purpose of this article is to discuss why and how Implementation Science is necessary to promote the uptake of innovations in clinical and educational practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.647
GPT teacher head0.751
Teacher spread0.103 · 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