Nursing Students' Learning Experiences in Clinical Settings:Stress, Anxiety and Coping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored nursing students‟ learning experiences during their clinical rotations, with a focus on stress, anxiety and coping. The six student participants were in the last semester of a three-year nursing program in a Montreal CEGEP. Three students reported this experience to be stressful, two described their experience as very positive and one described it as average. Despite different perceptions, all of the study participants identified a variety of stressors. These were classified under four thematic areas: 1) Learning environment, 2) Preparation for clinical and perception of self, 3) Effects of stress and anxiety, and 4) Coping skills. Participants felt that communication and the development of relationships with nurses and medical staff was difficult and stressful. Therefore, as students, they felt they did not belong on the team. Although participants described most of their teachers as approachable, several reported that the constant evaluation process, high and unrealistic expectations teachers had regarding students‟ knowledge and performance, and lack of autonomy to practice led to heightened states of stress and anxiety. Stress did not have an adverse effect on the performance of the clinical skills as reported by the students, but they acknowledged that it did affect their memory, retention and thinking process negatively. The study yielded new qualitative data on coping methods which students use in special situations in the clinical environments: a combination of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping methods. Emotion-focused methods were used more often. The findings have implications for improving learning and teaching practice and the environment of clinical experience for all concerned: nurse educators, nursing staff and teams, medical and management team and the students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".