Iranian Nurses' Views on Barriers and Facilitators in Patient Education: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a major factor in patient-centered care, patient education has a great impact on the quality of care provided by nurses; however, clinical nurses' performance with regard to patient education is not satisfactory. This study is an attempt to investigate barriers and facilitators in patient education from nurses' point of view. METHODS: 122 nurses at Jahrom University of Medical Sciences participated in this descriptive-cross sectional study. Sampling was based on the census method. The questionnaire used to collect data included questions about nurses' demography, barriers (10 questions), and facilitators (10 questions) in patient education. The questionnaire was designed to be completed independently. To analyze the data, the researchers used descriptive statistics, including frequency, mean and standard deviation. RESULTS: The highest scores related to barriers to patient education were: nurses' insufficient knowledge, patients' physical and emotional unpreparedness, and lack of a proper environment for education. The most important facilitators, on the other hand, were: enhancement of instructing nurses' knowledge and skills, motivating nurses, and a step-by-step approach to patient education. CONCLUSION: It is important that nurses be prepared and motivated to train their patients. By satisfactory patient education on the part of nurses, patients will be more willing to cooperate in the treatment process.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".