[Care assistants at the international level: a narrative review].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Care assistants at the international level: a narrative review. INTRODUCTION: At the international level, the role of care assistants, their competencies and scope of their professional practice has been debated for many years. Periodically updating the state of the art regarding the different training pathways, expected competencies, and responsibilities of care assistants at the international level is crucial for monitoring the evolution of these professional profiles. OBJECTIVE: To map the available classifications of care assistants at the international level, by describing (a) where these figures receive training, with which pathways, and for which competencies, and (b) where they can work and with what level of professional autonomy/interdependence with respect to other healthcare professions. METHOD: A narrative review of the literature was conducted by examining documents produced by the World Health Organization and the European Union; and that of three reference countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States of America. RESULTS: Fourteen documents were selected. Numerous care assistant profiles are described in available classifications, totaling 32 different profiles; these individuals may receive training in upper secondary school or colleges to perform a range of competencies. They may be supervised in their practice not only by nurses. In some countries, compulsory registration is required. DISCUSSION: The results show an important heterogeneity in care assistant figures internationally.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".