Coping and health in novice and experienced nursing students during clinical practice: a descriptive, differential and correlational analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim : This study identifies the differences in novice and experienced nursing students’ reports of coping and their relationship with health. Background : Clinical practice constitutes a particularly stressful training period in an academic context that activates many coping resources in students. However, there is little empirical evidence about the coping strategies used by novice and experienced nursing students during clinical practice. Both ineffective and adaptive efforts are manifested in health (physio-psycho-social symptoms). Methods : Cross-sectional research was performed using descriptive, differential and correlational procedures. This study was carried out with 357 students from all 3 years of a nursing diploma programme at a Spanish nursing college. Data were collected in 2008-2009. Findings : The results indicated that problem-focused coping (PFC) was used significantly more by students than emotion-focused coping (EFC). Both first and third-year students used PFC more frequently than second-year students. In contrast, second-year students used “avoidance” strategies more frequently than first-year students. The results also showed that emotion-focused coping significantly harmed student’s health during their clinical practice, while problem-focused coping tended to be associated with fewer health problems, but not significantly. These results were the same for all students irrespective of the course or experience. Conclusion: This study provides tools for the development of prevention programmes in nursing schools based on the identification of healthy coping strategies. The paper proposes certain actions to support the development of psycho- educational stress coping programmes for clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".