Improvement of the First Training for Baccalaureate Nursing Students –A Mutual Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Examination of problems and application of strategies appropriate for clinical education and learning, especially nursing clinical principles and skills internship can improve educational process and satisfaction of nursing students. The aim of the current study was to revise the current status of the fundamentals of nursing course and implement an improvement plan (2012-2014). PARTICIPANTS & METHODS: The present study reports the three rounds of a participatory action-research study with a mutual cooperation approach and focus group discussion, with participation of 104 stakeholders. Content analysis approach was used to analyze the data obtained in focus discussion interviews. In addition, evaluation and reflection were done during the operating rounds, with the participation of all members, including students, were involved. This research program was approved by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in Tehran-capital of Iran, at the Research Deputy of Nursing and Midwifery School and ethics committee of the university. RESULTS: The findings of qualitative study detected Lack of consistency in planning and implementation of curriculum, inadequate intra/extra-organizational communication management, inadequate student understanding of situation, improper control of restrictors and improper use of facilitators in teaching and in clinical setting, were among major challenges in clinical skills and principles internship process in the context of this study. Educational decision-making authorities of the School developed an operational program within national curriculum framework through cooperation and reflection in clinical skills and principles training program. CONCLUSION: Planning Fundamentals of Nursing training in partnership with all those involved in practice and education, together with students involved can be effective in reducing educational failures, gap between theory and practice, and in students' accountability and satisfaction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".