Anatomical Knowledge Retention in Second‐Year Nursing Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Human anatomy and physiology are foundational courses in undergraduate medical, allied health, and nursing curricula, and the significance of these courses in preparing health care professionals cannot be underestimated. However, despite the essential nature of these courses, there is growing concern that students do not retain enough anatomical knowledge to successfully apply it in future classroom and clinical settings. While there are many studies examining anatomical knowledge retention in medical and allied health students, no studies were found that address this concern in nursing students. The aim of this study was to determine how much anatomical knowledge second‐year nursing students retain from their first‐year anatomy class, and to determine if there is a difference in level of retention based on organ system. To address these questions, nurses in their second‐year health assessment course were quizzed on anatomical knowledge that was covered in the first year of their program. For each system students were asked to answer nine to eleven multiple‐choice questions (MCQs). The scores from these quizzes were compared to their first‐year examination scores on the same content to determine overall knowledge retention. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS II and means were compared using 2‐sample t‐tests. The scores are described for each organ system by reporting the mean and standard deviation (SD). Statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05 for all tests. The mean score of questions from all the organ systems in year one was 83.05 ± 8.34 (SD). Comparing that score to matched test items from this cohort in year two, there is a significant decrease in the overall mean score from 83.05 ± 8.34 (SD) to 54.36 ± 12.9 (SD), t=6.14, P=0.0001). This equates to a 71.3% retention rate and a 28.7% knowledge loss after one year. System specific knowledge retention was highest for the gastrointestinal system (89.7%), respiratory system (88.5%), and genitourinary system (83.6%). This was followed by the integumentary system (80.1%), special senses (79.4%), nervous system (74.9%) and musculoskeletal system (69.3%). Retention was lowest for the lymphatic system (64.3%), cranial nerves (58.8%), vascular system (53.9%) and head and neck lymphatic (42.6%). The present study shows that nursing students' anatomical knowledge retention was comparatively higher than rates reported by others in medical students and allied‐health students. Retention levels were system specific. This study is now investigating knowledge retention in 3 rd and 4 th year nursing students. Further investigation into why retention is higher for specific systems and interventional strategies to improve knowledge acquisition and retention in nursing students is recommended. Support or Funding Information None This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».