Citation Network Analysis of Nurse Staffing Research from the Past Two Decades: 2000–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have indicated that higher numbers of nurses regarding staffing ensure patient safety and a better practice environment. Using citation analysis, this study visualizes the landscape of nurse staffing research over the last two decades to show the overall publication trends, major contributors, and main research topics. We extracted bibliometric information from PubMed from January 2000 to September 2022. After clustering the network, we analyzed each cluster's characteristics by keyword. A total of 2167 papers were considered for analysis, and 14 clusters were created. The analysis showed that the number of papers published per year has been increasing. Researchers from the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Belgium have led this field. As the main clusters in nurse staffing research during the past two decades, the following five research settings were identified: nurse outcome and patient outcome research in acute care hospitals, nurse staffing mandate evaluation research, nursing home research, and school nurse research. The first three clusters accounted for more than 80% of the total number of published papers, and this ratio has not changed in the past 20 years. To further develop nurse staffing research globally, evidence from other geographic areas, such as African and Asian countries, and from long-term care or community settings is necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.116 | 0.211 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".