Journal Clubs: A Two-Site Case Study of Nurses ’ Continuing Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ii Aim: This paper is a report on a study that explored the professional development of intensive care unit nurses in journal clubs. Background: Evidence-based practice is important in nursing care (Krom, Batten, & Bautista, 2010). However few nurses feel comfortable using evidence to guide their practice (Pravikoff, Tanner, & Pierce, 2005). Journal clubs are a way to establish science as conversation (Wright, 2004) and foster knowledge translation for evidence-based nursing practice (Goodfellow, 2004). Methods: Monthly journal club meetings were held with the participation of a total of 71 healthcare professionals (65 nurses, 2 physicians, 2 pharmacists, 1 physiotherapist, and 1 respiratory therapist), who worked in two intensive care units of an Ontario hospital. After six months of meetings, 21 individual interviews were conducted with nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and nurse educators. Additional data collection included two focus groups, surveys, a review of staff meeting minutes, and researcher field notes. Findings: Journal clubs provided nurses with incentive to read research articles, improved
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".