Technology-Supported Guidance Models to Stimulate Nursing Students’ Self-Efficacy in Clinical Practice: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: In nursing education, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical skills is crucial for developing competence in clinical practice. Nursing students encounter challenges in acquiring these essential skills, making self-efficacy a critical component in their professional development. Self-efficacy pertains to individual's belief in their ability to perform tasks and overcome challenges, with significant implications for clinical skills acquisition and academic success. Previous research has underscored the strong link between nursing students' self-efficacy and their clinical competence. Technology has emerged as a promising tool to enhance self-efficacy by enabling personalized learning experiences and in-depth discussions. However, there is a need for a comprehensive literature review to assess the existing body of knowledge and identify research gaps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to systematically map and identify gaps in published studies on the use of technology-supported guidance models to stimulate nursing students' self-efficacy in clinical practice. METHODS: This scoping review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A systematic, comprehensive literature search was conducted in ERIC, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published between January 2011 and April 2023. The reference lists of the included papers were manually searched to identify additional studies. Pairs of authors screened the papers, assessed eligibility, and extracted the data. The data were thematically organized. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were included and four thematic groups were identified: (1) technological solutions for learning support, (2) learning focus in clinical practice, (3) teaching strategies and theoretical approaches for self-efficacy, and (4) assessment of self-efficacy and complementary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Various technological solutions were adopted in the guidance models to stimulate the self-efficacy of nursing students in clinical practice, leading to positive findings. A total of 7 out of 8 studies presented results that were not statistically significant, highlighting the need for further refinement of the applied interventions. Nurse educators play a pivotal role in applying learning strategies and theoretical approaches to enhance nursing students' self-efficacy, but the contributions of nurse preceptors and peers should not be overlooked. Future studies should consider involving users in the intervention process and using validated instruments tailored to the studies' intervention objectives, ensuring relevance and enabling comparisons across studies.
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 | 0,023 | 0,094 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».