Capability as a concept in advanced practice nursing and education: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to map the literature about the concept of capability in advanced practice nursing education and practice to achieve greater clarity on the concept and its application. INTRODUCTION: Advanced practice nursing roles make up a growing segment of the global nursing workforce. Capability has been proposed as an overarching description of the attributes of advanced practice nursing roles within complex workplace environments. Capability includes knowing how to learn, and the ability to creatively integrate prior knowledge, skills, judgment, and experience in both new and familiar situations. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review looked at the literature about capability applied to advanced practice nursing in any setting globally. We were guided by the International Council of Nurses' definition of advanced practice nursing, which includes nurses with both graduate education and an expanded scope of practice. Drawing from an initial review of the literature, we used a working definition of capability, which was a combination of knowledge, skills, experience, and competencies that enables advanced practice nurses to provide appropriate care for patients in both known and unfamiliar clinical settings. We included literature about individual capability as a concept in any setting related to advanced practice nursing and education. METHODS: We searched 18 electronic databases and included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods study design methodologies, reviews, and reports. The gray literature search included policy and practice documents from the World Health Organization, the International Council of Nurses, and websites of 48 nursing and health organizations. Two reviewers independently completed title and abstract screening prior to full-text review and data extraction. Conflicts were resolved via discussion or with a third reviewer. Extraction was completed by 2 reviewers using a piloted data extraction tool. Articles published in English from 1975 to the present were included. Sources in languages other than English were not included in the review due to the difficulties in accurately translating the concept of capability. RESULTS: Thirty-five sources were included in the review with publication dates from 2000 to 2023. Most sources originated from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Sources included frameworks and clinical guidelines, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature. Capability was discussed in a range of settings, including specialized clinical roles. Applications of capability in educational settings included the use of capability frameworks to guide nurse practitioner education, nursing practice doctorates, and postgraduate nurse practitioner training. Definitions of capability, where provided, were relatively consistent. Capability was proposed as a distinguishing characteristic of advanced practice nursing, as a descriptor of clinical proficiency that moved beyond competency, and as a framework that accounted for complexity in health care settings. CONCLUSION: Capability was used as a concept and framework to describe advanced practice nursing within complex practice environments that necessitate flexible approaches. Capability frameworks were applied holistically and to specific areas of practice or education, including in pregraduate and postgraduate advanced practice nursing education. Strategies for teaching and learning capability focused on flexibility, student-directed learning, and development of flexible learning pathways. SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT: A Norwegian-language version of the abstract of this review is available: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A58.
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 | 0.016 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".