Improving first-destination recruitment: nursing students' perceptions of three initiatives in London, England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the face of recruitment problems, managers are becoming increasingly proactive by introducing novel initiatives designed to encourage newly qualified nurses to apply to their institutions and catchment areas for employment. AIMS AND METHODS: Based on a multimethod survey of students from two British universities, this paper explores their perceptions of three very different initiatives, each at different stages of development and implementation. The 'Home Trust' initiative, provided the majority of clinical placements in one hospital. It was experienced by almost all the students who reported on it in questionnaires (n = 650), focus groups (n = 7) and interviews (n = 30). The 'On Secondment' initiative, seconded Health Care Assistants from their jobs into nurse education. It was experienced by a small number of students who reported on it in questionnaires (n = 32) and focus groups (n = 3). The 'Recruitment Clearing House' initiative planned to provide one interview for a range of hospitals and job vacancies in a large geographical catchment area. At the time of data collection, it was in a conceptual phase and was commented on in a small number of focus groups with students (n = 3). In addition, this initiative was commented on by recruitment managers in interviews (n = 3). RESULTS: Students held strong views on the positive and negative features of both current and prospective initiatives. Unique consumer insights were gained, particularly into their finer details and consequences. CONCLUSION: Student experiences and perceptions are valuable in the planning, implementation and review stages of local recruitment initiatives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".