Initiatives to support nursing workforce sustainability: a rapid umbrella review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has made long-standing nursing workforce challenges apparent on an international scale. Decision-makers must develop multi-pronged approaches to foster the development and maintenance of a strong nursing workforce to support health systems. These approaches require attendance to recruitment and retention initiatives that show promise for stabilising the nursing workforce now and into the future. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches were conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus from January 2014 up to 11 March 2024. This rapid umbrella review protocol is guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. The research question guiding this review is: what structures have healthcare systems put in place to stabilise, support and sustain the nursing workforce? This review will include existing reviews of nursing workforce initiatives with outcomes that impact nursing recruitment and retention. Results will support local health transformation including the development of a jurisdictional nursing workforce stabilisation strategy. Findings from this review will be relevant for the design, refinement and implementation of nursing workforce sustainability strategies in countries around the globe and may apply to strategies for other healthcare workers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional research ethics board exemption was received. The research team is supported by an advisory group that includes provider and patient partners. The results from this study will inform the Nursing Workforce Strategy for the province of Nova Scotia as part of a larger Canadian Institutes of Health Research-funded project. They will also inform broader planning and strategy in Canada through integration with other evidence-generation activities such as comparative policy analyses and workforce planning exercises. Finally, the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered through Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CUJYK.
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 | 0.212 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.033 |
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".