Trends in the primary healthcare nursing workforce in managing diabetes from two sample surveys in 2006–2008 and 2016 in Auckland, New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine trends in the primary healthcare nursing workforce and their community management of diabetes. METHOD: Two representative surveys were carried out in 2006-2008 and 2016 among all primary healthcare nurses in Auckland. Nurses were randomly selected, and 26% (n=287) and 24% (n=336) completed a self-administered questionnaire and telephone survey. Biographical information, knowledge of diabetes, how valued nurses felt and diabetes care for patients was provided. RESULTS: Between surveys, numbers of practice nurses have significantly increased, and specialist nurse numbers decreased, while district nurse numbers remained the same. In 2016, practice nurses were younger, more ethnically diverse, more likely to undertake education and had increased knowledge of diabetes and diabetes-related complications (including stroke) compared to nurses in 2006-2008. More nurses consulted patients, conducted foot examinations, addressed serum glucose, medication management, tobacco use and followed up care independently of doctors. In 2016, only 37% of nurses felt sufficiently knowledgeable to discuss medications with patients, <20% could state that hypertension, smoking and dyslipidaemia were major risk factors for complications, and less nurses felt valued. CONCLUSION: Practice nurses have increased their capacity in diabetes management following global trends and require more support in meeting the complex healthcare needs of people with diabetes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".