To get a better job or do the job better: motivations of registered general nurses to participate in post‐registration degrees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pre‐registration education of nurses in the UK changed in the early 1990s from a hospital‐based apprenticeship model to a more academic route through diplomas or degrees. The move towards degree‐level education for nurses is driven by the twin aims of raising the status of nursing and improving patient care. However, a substantial proportion of the workforce qualified through the traditional certificated route and there is little research into their response to the emphasis on degrees. This paper presents findings from the sixth questionnaire in a longitudinal study of traditionally trained nurses who qualified in 1990/91. It discusses the plans and motivations to take post‐registration degrees of 620 nurses 8 years after qualification. A quarter had post‐registration degrees and a further fifth planned to take their first degree in the future. Just under a fifth of those nurses who had completed or were completing post‐registration degrees chose a subject other than nursing. Reported motivations to take degrees were related to changing jobs, nursing career plans, wanting intellectual stimulation, improving self‐confidence and improving practice. Wanting intellectual stimulation was a very important motivation to take both nursing and non‐nursing degrees. Most nurses undertaking non‐nursing degrees were also motivated by a desire to leave nursing. Although nursing career plans were an important motivation for those taking nursing or healthcare‐related degrees, this was not as important as improving practice. Educators should build on nurses’ desire to learn and improve practice by ensuring that degree programmes are designed to deliver appropriate clinical skills.
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 | 0.000 | 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".