Improvement in Knowledge Level of Associate Degree Nursing Students in Zarqa University College Regarding Care for Patients With Indwelling Urinary Catheters After Joining an Educational Session
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care for patients with indwelling urinary catheter is one of the most important factors in preventing problems associated with indwelling urinary catheters. Caregiver education about caring of indwelling urinary catheters is important the same as patient education to prevent urinary catheters problems. METHODS: A pre test post test control group design was used with nursing students of Zarqa University College. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Experimental group did not do better in the posttest than the control group after they joined an educational session about caring for patients with indwelling urinary catheter. Level of student (first year vs. second year) has been identified as a covariate that may have distorted the results. CONCLUSION: One educational session is insufficient to change level of knowledge regarding caring for patients with indwelling urinary catheter, in addition to considering the level of nursing student when conducting the educational session.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".