The impact of a nurse’s dual role on implementing an effectiveness study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reorganizing the Approach to Diabetes through the Application of Registries (RADAR) improved diabetes care and outcomes for First Nations people in Alberta, Canada. The nurse involved in the implementation of RADAR performed two roles in this model of care: research nurse and care coordinator. AIM: To describe the research nurse's dual role in the implementation and evaluation of RADAR. DISCUSSION: The research nurse not only documented and collected data in hard-to-reach communities as part of effective research, she also provided remote care coordination to support community healthcare providers using a culturally tailored registry to facilitate population-level care. This dual role required many qualities of nursing leadership and transformation. CONCLUSION: The research nurse's two roles contributed to the success of the intervention and were critical to the successful implementation of the model, creating valuable real-world evidence across diverse populations and settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses are well placed to perform research duties alongside engagement and implementation activities. This can enhance the effectiveness and evaluation of healthcare interventions, particularly in community-based interventions within First Nations communities.
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 | 0.343 | 0.348 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".