A study to evaluate the introduction of simulation as a teaching strategy for the mental health and learning disability fields of nursing in an undergraduate nursing curriculum within one higher education institution in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Fidelity Simulation or Human Patient Simulation is an educational strategy embedded within nursing curricula throughout many healthcare educational institutions. This paper reports on an evaluative study that investigated the views of a group of Year 2 undergraduate nursing students from the mental health and the learning disability fields of nursing (n = 75) in relation to simulation as a teaching pedagogy. The study took place in the simulation suite within a School of Nursing and Midwifery in the UK. Two patient scenarios were used for the session and participants completed a 22-item questionnaire consisting of three biographical information questions and a 19-item Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were employed to illustrate the data and non-parametric testing (Mann-Whitney U test) was employed to test a number of hypotheses. Overall students were positive about the introduction of patient scenarios using the human patient simulator into the undergraduate nursing curriculum. This study used a small, convenience sample in one institution and therefore the results obtained cannot be generalised to nursing education before further research can be conducted with larger samples and a mixed-method research approach. However these results provide encouraging evidence to support the use of simulation within the mental health and the learning disability fields of nursing, and the development and implementation of further simulations to complement the students’ practicum.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".