The Effects of Clinical Placement on Students' Confidence in Their Mental Health Nursing Competencies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Concerns have been expressed about the ability of nov- ice nurses to provide competent mental health care (Tognazinni, Davis, Kean, Osborne, & Wong, 2008; Wyn- aden, Orb, McGowan, & Downie, 2000). This study eval- uated and compared the effects of a clinical placement on the confidence of baccalaureate nursing students in their mental health competencies. The study explored two re- search questions: 1) Does completing a clinical mental health course affect students' confidence in their mental health nursing competencies? 2) Do the confidence levels of students whose clinical courses take place in commu- nity settings differ from those whose clinical courses take place in acute in-patient units?BackgroundThe existing literature shows that certain variables may positively influence undergraduate baccalaureate nursing students' acquisition of mental health nursing competen- cies; specifically, the inclusion of a mental health theory course (Bairan & Farnsworth, 1989; Happell, 2009) and a clinical mental health course (Happell, 2008a, 2008b; Happell, Robins & Gough, 2008a, 2008b). A number of researchers have found that the clinical mental health course was optimally situated in a community setting (Happell, 2008c; McAllister, 2007; Wynaden et al., 2000), whereas one source found that hospital in-patient settings yielded better learning outcomes (Henderson, Happell, & Martin, 2007).MethodsampLe anD instRumentA voluntary convenience sample was obtained that con- sisted of undergraduate BSN students, with 20 situated in the in-patient hospital unit and 14 in community clinical settings. Pre- and posttest questionnaires were adminis- tered. The Mental Health Nursing Clinical Confidence Scale (Bell, Horsfall, & Goodin, 1998), a recognized instrument with well-established validity, was utilized. This instrument consists of a series of self-report questions, rated on a seven-point Likert scale, that evaluate the stu- dents' confidence in specific mental health care nursing competencies. Consent was obtained from all participants, and the project obtained formal approval from the partici- pating institution's research ethics board.Data AnalysisThe data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 14.0), with a generalized linear model (GLM) repeated measures analy- sis to control for type 1 error. The confidence scores were totaled to obtain each participant's total score for the pre- test and for the posttest. These values were used to analyze the data. The statistical analysis was conducted at a 95 percent confidence level with a p-value ResultsA Mauchly's test of sphericity was W = 1, which was great- er than a normal distribution of 0.05, so sphericity was as- sumed. The repeated measures analysis of the within-sub- jects variable showed a significant difference for tests (F = 18.599, p The results of this study provided support to two con- clusions: 1) Students' confidence in their mental health nursing competencies improved following their clini- cal mental health placement, supporting the findings of previous studies and underscoring the importance of including a clinical mental health course in undergrad- uate nursing programs. 2) The specific type of clinical placement (community versus in-patient) was not shown to have a significant effect on confidence levels, contra- dicting previous data.Discussion/Recommendations for ResearchUnforeseen implications arose that were not addressed in the existing literature. …
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 | 0,004 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 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 ».