An initiative to teach family systems nursing using online health-promoting conversations: A multi-methods evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Family systems nursing embraces the view that one family member’s illness affects other family members and vice versa. Family nursing developed as a way for nurses to work with families to promote health. Previously, teachers performed most of the education on health-promoting conversations with families on campus. Because online education is increasingly requested in nursing, this article evaluates teaching family systems nursing by using synchronous online health-promoting conversations. Methods: Fifteen registered nurses attended the course “Health-Promoting Family Focused Nursing”, an advanced-level nursing elective 10-week course. The course used technology enhanced learning and was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. Students and teachers participated in semi-structured focus group interviews analyzed qualitatively. The students filled in a traditional course evaluation. Students responded before and after the course to the multidimensional research instrument “Families’ Importance in Nursing Care—Nurse’s Attitudes” (FINC-NA). Results : The students were satisfied with the course and the synchronous health-promoting conversations. They learned to “think family” and acknowledged the importance of inviting families to take part in the care of a family member. They stated that the online practice had helped them gain a useful tool for their future family nursing practice. The teachers appreciated working in a team to develop the course. At the start of the project they viewed the online technology as a challenge. However, during the course they saw many pedagogical possibilities with the synchronous meetings and that the online family conversation training worked well. The ability to record the meetings offered educational advantages and the opportunity for students to reflect on the conversations. Even if the students rated families importance in nursing care positively prior to the course on FINC-NA, the students still gave the following domains even stronger support post-course: Family as a resource in nursing care, Family as a burden, and Family as own resource. Conclusions : Family systems nursing and health-promoting conversations with families, comprising interaction between several participants, can be learned using online pedagogical methods. Furthermore, the belief that health-promoting family conversations need to be held with all participants in the same room has been challenged.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".