Reasons for application and expectations from a post-registration degree: Views of Omani nurses and their managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A BSc in Nursing Studies for qualified nurses has been delivered in Oman by Cardiff University since 2009. Research was undertaken to explore why Omani nurses applied and expectations from the programme. It also investigated managers’ reasons for sending nurses on the degree and their expectation of nurses on completion. Design: A longitudinal qualitative research study followed nurses in 2 cohorts (N = 27 + 30) and a selection of their managers (N = 20). Data collection took place at various sites throughout Oman. Methods: Focus groups were undertaken with all nurses who embarked on the programme. Semi structured interviews took place with a random selection of ten nurses and their managers from each cohort (N = 20 nurses/20 nurse managers) 6 months after the course had completed. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a template developed from data. Results: Nurses’ reasons for application included easy access to a degree in Oman; career aspiration and progression; knowledge and skill acquisition; self-growth; gain a qualification and prepare for postgraduate study. They expected to learn skills of English language, critical analysis and application of evidence to practice. Managers sent nurses to enhance personal and professional development; change practice; improve quality of patient care and develop nursing as a profession in Oman. Conclusion: The delivery of a degree by a UK institution taught in English at an institution abroad has advantages. It increases accessibility; maintains family and social network connections; offers familiarity with cultural norms; and facilitates entry into the academic world of English written literature. These factors facilitate nurses’ developing skills and knowledge to underpin practice and the profession with evidence; highlighting the benefits of transnational programmes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".