Global research trends in nursing leadership from 1985 to 2022: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Developing nursing leadership has become a key policy priority to achieve universal health coverage. This study aims to explore the current status, developing trends and research frontiers in the field of nursing leadership. Design/methodology/approach In total, 1,137 articles and reviews on nursing leadership from 1985 to 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. Trends of publications, journals, countries/regions, institutions, documents and keywords were visualized and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and CiteSpace software. Findings Nursing leadership research showed an overall increase in number despite slight fluctuations in annual publications. The USA was the leading country in nursing leadership research, and the University of Alberta was the most productive institution. The Journal of Nursing Management was the most widely published journal that focused on nursing leadership, followed by the Journal of Nursing Administration. Keyword analysis showed that the main research hotspots of nursing leadership are improvement, practice and impact of nursing leadership. Originality/value This article summarizes the current state and frontiers of nursing leadership for researchers, managers and policy makers, as well as follow-up, development and implementation of nursing leadership. More research is needed that focuses on the improvement, practice and impact of nursing leadership, which are cyclical, complementary and mutually reinforcing. Longitudinal and intervention studies of nursing leadership, especially on patient prognosis, are also particularly needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.156 | 0.215 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".