The impact of ongoing continuing professional development for nurses in the Republic of Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to explore and describe the stressors experienced by a group of 70 students who were undertaking a part-time degree in an Irish University. BACKGROUND: Within the literature on stress, part-time nursing students, who are undertaking continuing education programmes, appear to have received little attention. Stress amongst nurses is evident within the nursing literature but little information is available on the specific stressors that affect Registered Nurses who attend further academic study. Furthermore, there is little attention given to comparisons across faculty or between different institutions. METHOD: The authors used quantitative methods to gather a large amount of data on the topic. Data were collected using questionnaires distributed to two groups of students in a classroom setting. RESULTS: The top ranking stressor was 'preparing an assignment for submission'. Nursing students were predominantly exposed to stressors associated with assignment completion/submission and balancing work and family commitments. Differences emerged between the groups with regard to the intensity of perceived stressors in relation to academic portions of the programme and also finance. Nine major factors emerged from factor analysis that may form the basis for future studies in this area. Areas related to lectures, relationships with lecturers and the course process were not identified as stressors. CONCLUSION: The results of this study identified common student stressors across two universities, and confirmed the findings of an initial small exploratory study. The intensity of perceived stress is such that both educators and nurse managers need to be informed of both its magnitude and its possible impact upon clinical practice. In addition, additional student support structures are clearly required within the university setting particularly with regards to writing skills and assignment construction.
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 | 0.004 | 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".