Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Confidence Regarding Preventing and Treating Deconditioning in Older Adults
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: This article examines nurses' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and confidence regarding providing care to prevent and treat deconditioning in hospitalized older adults. METHODS: Data were collected from 157 registered nurses enrolled in a post-registered nurse, bachelor of science in nursing program using a descriptive cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Nurses' responses reflected substantial gaps in their knowledge and theoretical understanding of deconditioning, and a strong belief in the need for more education on the prevention of it. Levels of confidence in preventing deconditioning in older adults were modest, but participants expressed positive attitudes toward nurses' role in deconditioning care. Barriers to deconditioning care included lack of education, low staffing levels, and a lack of valuing prevention efforts. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that it is important to establish gerontology continuing education programs with a core component on deconditioning treatment and prevention to enhance nurses' knowledge and confidence levels in providing care to older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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