The advocacy process in Canadian community health nursing: A collaborative ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".