Fostering International Collaborations to Inform Nursing and Midwifery Policy: A Caribbean Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This initiative aimed to contribute to the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization's (PAHO/WHO) strategic goals for nursing and midwifery workforce development in the Caribbean by establishing a collaboration to streamline processes to collect comprehensive region-wide data and reduce respondent burden. BACKGROUND: The Caribbean region faces persistent challenges in nursing and midwifery workforce development due to high migration rates, workforce shortages, and limited regional data collection. Seven PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centers (CCs) for Nursing and Midwifery were tasked separately with Terms of Reference to support the human resources for health (HRH)-related Sustainable Development Goals of Caribbean countries. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: PAHO-tasked Terms of Reference for CC activities and strategic priorities in the Caribbean. DISCUSSION: Using Donabedian's structure-process-outcome model, we described the development, implementation, and impact of this initiative. Structural components included the Pan American Collaborating Centers for Nursing and Midwifery (PANMCC) network, formal leadership, PAHO support, team commitment and expertise, and resources. The process emphasized regular communication, stakeholder engagement, and a collaborative approach to survey design and distribution. Outcomes included the successful development and implementation of a comprehensive survey, improved data quality, reduced respondent burden, and shared learning. Unexpected benefits were the strengthening of the PANMCC network and further opportunities for collaboration. CONCLUSION: The success of this initiative was attributed to structures and processes that set the foundation for effective communication, collaboration, and synergies among the CCs to achieve project goals. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING POLICY AND PRACTICE: This international collaboration showcased the importance of strong leadership, mutual commitment, and unwavering support from the PANMCC network. The findings demonstrate the potential of coordinated efforts to inform nursing and midwifery HRH policy and practice in resource-constrained regions.
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 | 0.053 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".