MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4306291725 · doi:10.17483/2368-6669.1331

Incivility in Nursing Education: Sources of Bullying and their Impact on Nursing and Psychiatric Nursing Students

2022· article· en· W4306291725 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kathryn Chachula, Nora Ahmad, Nadine Smith, Nadine Henriquez

Notice bibliographique

RevueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmière · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Établissements canadiensBrandon University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIncivilityBachelorNursingNurse educationMedicineWorkplace bullyingPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify who were the key sources of incivility, how frequently uncivil behaviours occurred, and determine the impact of incivility among a sample of Bachelor of Nursing (BN) and Bachelor of Psychiatric Nursing (BPN) students at one university in a western Canadian province. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted that incorporated findings from an anonymous cross-sectional survey of second, third-, and fourth-year students from the BN and BPN programs (n = 68) and narrative findings from a live discussion forum (n = 48) with third-year student participants. Results: The most frequent sources of incivility included nurses, faculty, clinical instructors, student peers, patients, and physicians. Out of a total of 26 uncivil behaviours, 10 were identified as being the most common among the sample. They included: (1) feeling undervalued; (2) that high and impossible expectations were set; (3) students experienced feeling resentment; (4) were frozen out, ignored, or excluded; (5) were unjustly criticized; (6) that student efforts were undervalued; (7) information was withheld; (8) there were changing expectations; (9) they experienced hostility, felt belittled or undermined; and (10) 45.6% of students felt they were treated poorly on grounds of race. Non-parametric statistical analysis revealed that students who self-identified as a visible minority had a statistically significant positive relationship with intent-to-leave their baccalaureate program (rs = 0.262, p = 0.031). Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) of the narratives discussed by students revealed three overarching themes. The themes included: (1) practicing in a toxic culture; (2) feeling like a burden; and (3) having a lack of positive role models and support. Conclusions: Students from BN and BPN programs experience bullying and uncivil behaviours from a variety of sources. Of great concern, was the number of student participants who reported the occurrence of horizontal bullying and incivility experienced by nursing students from fellow nursing students. The findings indicated the presence of horizontal violence among students that requires further study. The presence of a toxic culture can jeopardize patient safety if learners are afraid to speak up and advocate for their patients. Students seeking employment planned to avoid clinical units where negative encounters occurred amid a toxic environment. This has implications for employers engaged in recruitment and retention efforts with students seeking alternate employment opportunities upon their graduation and entry into the nursing profession. Although students felt humiliated at times and treated like a burden by clinical staff, they remained hopeful for the nursing profession as they looked to their future careers in health care settings. Greater efforts are required to minimize racism and incivility experienced by students during their education in addition to disrupting the cycle of violence that begins while students are enrolled in their nursing education program.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,563
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,424
Écart entre enseignants0,400 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueQuality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmièreMême sujetWorkplace Violence and BullyingTravaux en français237 207