The Facilitators and Barriers to Nurses’ Participation in Continuing Education Programs: A Mixed Method Explanatory Sequential Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since several factors affect nurses' participation in Continuing Education, and that nurses' Continuing Education affects patients' and community health status, it is essential to know facilitators and barriers of participation in Continuing Education programs and plan accordingly. This mixed approach study aimed to investigate the facilitators and barriers of nurses' participation, to explore nurses' perception of the most common facilitators and barriers. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed methods design with follow up explanations variant were used, and it involved collecting quantitative data (361 nurses) first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth interviews during a qualitative study. RESULTS: The results showed that the mean score of facilitators to nurses' participation in Continuing Education was significantly higher than the mean score of barriers (61.99 ± 10.85 versus 51.17 ± 12.83; p<0.001, t=12.23). The highest mean score of facilitators of nurses' participation in Continuing Education was related to "Update my knowledge". By reviewing the handwritings in qualitative phase, two main levels of updating information and professional skills were extracted as the most common facilitators and lack of support as the most common barrier to nurses' participation in continuing education program. CONCLUSION: According to important role Continuing Education on professional skills, nurse managers should facilitate the nurse' participation in the Continues Education.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it