MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387637072 · doi:10.1111/jan.15896

The advocacy process in Canadian community health nursing: A collaborative ethnography

2023· article· en· W4387637072 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geneviève McCready, Hélène Laperrière

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCégep de RimouskiUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPublic relationsPolicy advocacyNursingEmpowermentBureaucracyHealth careContext (archaeology)PoliticsPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To shed light on the process of advocacy in the context of community health nursing, through a methodology inspired by the epistemologies of the South. DESIGN: We conducted a collaborative ethnography in a community health centre in Canada. METHODS: de Sousa Santos' epistemologies of the South, a typology of advocacy and main themes from historic research informed the methodology. Data were collected between 2016 and 2018 through 420 h of fieldwork observations and three group discussions, including a collective process to co-construct interpretations with participants. Twenty-one nurses participated in the study. RESULTS: Nurses had sufficient work flexibility to practice advocacy actions focused on individuals and groups. They also engaged in attempts at policy reform in the form of defending access to appropriate care and changing the mode of care organization. However, these were curbed by bureaucracy and administrative rules, resulting in the eventual dismissal of health promotion actions and experiences of moral distress. CONCLUSION: Despite the political climate of their work environment impeding social justice agendas, nurses' advocacy practices showed a persistence of moral values and ideals in coherence with the regional nursing legacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Acting at the organizational level and involving field nurses in decision making are potential avenues for increasing policy advocacy efficacy. IMPACT: Examining contexts through another epistemic lens and methods of research drawing on history and anthropology has shed light on a process of advocacy. This research shows that organizations need to equip themselves with mechanisms to promote the sharing of realities between nurses, thereby building collective advocacy. REPORTING METHOD: The research adheres to the EQUATOR guidelines with SRQR and COREQ methods. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0400.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.010
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207