Experiences of internationally educated nurses working with older adults: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada, like many other jurisdictions worldwide, is facing a nursing shortage. At the same time, high-income countries are facing a rapidly ageing and more complex older adult population. Demands for more responsive health care services are driving systems of care to meet the evolving needs of the ageing population. Internationally-educated nurses (IENs) can help fill gaps in the care of older adults, but may need considerable support to work in new social and health care environments. However, the experiences of IENs within the geriatric care literature have not been comprehensively reviewed. This protocol will outline a scoping review to determine: (1) what is known about the experiences and support needs of IENs in geriatric healthcare settings within high income countries? (2) what are current supportive-pathways for IENs in geriatric practice settings? And (3) what are the research gaps in the existing literature on the experiences and support needs of IENs within the context of geriatrics? METHODS: A scoping review will be conducted guided by the methodological framework set out by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and later advanced by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien (2010). The search strategy will be applied to seven databases (MEDLINE, PubMed (non-MEDLINE records), PsycINFO, PsychArticles, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science). Grey literature will be searched using Google search engines, targeted websites and consultation with content experts. Articles of any publication date will be included. A two-stage screening process will be conducted in duplicate (i.e., two reviewers per stage) to determine eligible articles. Data from eligible articles will be extracted using a piloted charting form. Extracted data will be analyzed using thematic and descriptive analyses. DISCUSSION: The findings of the upcoming will highlight opportunities and recommendations to inform future research and support training to support IENs working with older adults within high income countries. Publication, presentations and stakeholder meetings will disseminate our findings.
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 | 0.115 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.010 |
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".