Nurse perceptions of manual patient transfer training: Implications for injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of student and staff nurses regarding training they received and their confidence in performing a variety of common manual patient transfers (MPTs), given that inadequate training may have implications for injury risk. PARTICIPANTS: Student nurses (n=163) from a mid-sized university and staff nurses (n=33) from a small rural hospital in the university's region. METHODS: Participants were surveyed to determine which of 19 MPTs they perceived having received training for and had greatest confidence performing. RESULTS: The staff nurses perceived being trained on four MPTs; the same four they indicated they had the greatest confidence performing. However, nursing students were not trained on these MPTs at the local university, indicating an apparent disconnect in training practices between the academic institution and the workplace. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that a participatory ergonomics training approach may help to provide student nurses more opportunity to practice MPTs and help all nurses reduce work-related musculoskeletal injury risk and increase job satisfaction. Increased training time may also allow student nurses to gain greater mastery and confidence of skills prior to full-time employment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".