An initiative to teach family systems nursing using online health-promoting conversations: A multi-methods evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Family systems nursing embraces the view that one family member’s illness affects other family members and vice versa. Family nursing developed as a way for nurses to work with families to promote health. Previously, teachers performed most of the education on health-promoting conversations with families on campus. Because online education is increasingly requested in nursing, this article evaluates teaching family systems nursing by using synchronous online health-promoting conversations. Methods: Fifteen registered nurses attended the course “Health-Promoting Family Focused Nursing”, an advanced-level nursing elective 10-week course. The course used technology enhanced learning and was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. Students and teachers participated in semi-structured focus group interviews analyzed qualitatively. The students filled in a traditional course evaluation. Students responded before and after the course to the multidimensional research instrument “Families’ Importance in Nursing Care—Nurse’s Attitudes” (FINC-NA). Results : The students were satisfied with the course and the synchronous health-promoting conversations. They learned to “think family” and acknowledged the importance of inviting families to take part in the care of a family member. They stated that the online practice had helped them gain a useful tool for their future family nursing practice. The teachers appreciated working in a team to develop the course. At the start of the project they viewed the online technology as a challenge. However, during the course they saw many pedagogical possibilities with the synchronous meetings and that the online family conversation training worked well. The ability to record the meetings offered educational advantages and the opportunity for students to reflect on the conversations. Even if the students rated families importance in nursing care positively prior to the course on FINC-NA, the students still gave the following domains even stronger support post-course: Family as a resource in nursing care, Family as a burden, and Family as own resource. Conclusions : Family systems nursing and health-promoting conversations with families, comprising interaction between several participants, can be learned using online pedagogical methods. Furthermore, the belief that health-promoting family conversations need to be held with all participants in the same room has been challenged.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».