MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389993461 · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04941-7

Perceived self-efficacy and willingness to teach family planning among nursing and midwifery faculty in higher learning institutions in Rwanda

2023· article· en· W4389993461 sur OpenAlexaff
Aimable Nkurunziza, Madeleine Mukeshimana, Tamrat Endale, Michael Habtu, Yvonne Delphine Nsaba Uwera, Reverien Rutayisire, Justine Bagirisano, Jean Bosco Henri Hitayezu, Marie Laetitia Ishimwe Bazakare, J. Uwimana

Notice bibliographique

RevueBMC Medical Education · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Michigan
Mots-clésThematic analysisWorkforceNursingMedical educationCurriculumPopulationMedicinePsychologyObstetricsQualitative researchPedagogySociologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Promoting family planning (FP) is a key strategy for health, economic and population growth, and achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) especially SDG 3, which promotes health and well-being for all. The quality of FP services depends on the training of competent nursing and midwifery graduates before entering the workforce. In order to ensure graduates are well-trained and capable of meeting the needs of the population, their teachers need to demonstrate high self-efficacy and willingness to teach FP. However, there is a lack of research on the capacity and willingness of nursing and midwifery faculty to teach FP at higher learning institutions (HLIs) in Rwanda. The objective is to investigate and articulate the perceived self-efficacy and willingness of the nursing and midwifery faculty to instruct HLIs students on FP. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODOLOGY: We conducted a mixed methods study using a sequential explanatory design among almost all the HLIs (n = 6, 1 institution declined) that train nurses and midwives in Rwanda. One hundred thirty-six nursing and midwifery faculty who were actively teaching FP either in class, simulation lab, or clinical practice were invited to participate in a self-administered questionnaire and four qualitative focused group discussions. Participants answered questions ranking their self-efficacy in four domains from 0 - not confident to 3 - completely confident. Scores were calculated for each domain. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on quantitative survey findings to gain a deep understanding of the ability and willingness to teach FP. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Rwanda, College of Medicine and Health Sciences Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: A total number of 89 nursing and midwifery faculty participated in the study and only 85 completed the questionnaires fully, yielding a response rate of 95.5%. The mean age was 40.39 and there were more females (62.4%) compared to their male counterparts (37.6%). Respondents scored highest for perceived self-efficacy in course preparation (mean = 2.37), evaluation and examination (mean = 2.12) and instructor behavior and delivery (mean = 2.35). However, the score was low for clinical practices (mean = 1.79). There was a significant correlation among the four items of self-efficacy (p < 0.05). Being a female, a midwife, and having more years of experience in nursing education were each significantly associated with perceived self-efficacy to teach FP (p < 0.05). In the qualitative phase, 32 study participants participated in four focus group discussions. Four themes were identified: (a) educational background as a determinant of confidence to teach FP; (b) willingness to teach FP; (c) enabling factors of teaching FP; and (d) structural challenges. CONCLUSION: Nursing and midwifery faculty reported inadequate self-confidence in teaching FP in clinical practice. Addressing personal and structural challenges in teaching FP should be a top priority. This requires a collective effort between nursing and midwifery faculty and HLIs to dismantle individual and systemic barriers that hinder self-efficacy and willingness to teach FP. There is a need for HLIs and different stakeholders to invest in training the nursing and midwifery faculty on FP practical skills to have a nursing and midwifery workforce providing up-to-date clinical FP services that will help Rwanda reach the SDGs.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,339

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
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 Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,390
Écart entre enseignants0,329 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations4
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBMC Medical EducationMême sujetGlobal Maternal and Child HealthTravaux en français237 207