Nursing students' understanding and enactment of resilience: a grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to explore nursing students' understanding and enactment of resilience. BACKGROUND: Stress is considered to be a major factor affecting the health, well-being and academic performance of nursing students. Resilience has been extensively researched as a process that allows individuals to successfully adapt to adversity and develop positive outcomes as a result. However, relatively little is known about the resilience of nursing students. DESIGN: A constructivist, grounded theory qualitative design was used for this study. METHOD: In-depth individual interviews were conducted with 38 nursing students enrolled in a four-year, integrated baccalaureate nursing degree programme at a university in Ontario, Canada. Face-to-face interviews were conducted from January to April 2012 using a semi-structured interview guide. FINDINGS: The basic social process of 'pushing through' emerged as nursing students' understanding and enactment of resilience. Participants employed this process to withstand challenges in their academic lives. This process was comprised of three main phases: 'stepping into', 'staying the course' and 'acknowledging'. 'Pushing through' also included a transient 'disengaging' process where students were temporarily unable to push through their adversities. The process of 'pushing through' was based on a progressive trajectory, which implied that nursing students enacted the process to make progress in their academic lives and to attain goals. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide important evidence for understanding the phenomenon of resilience as a dynamic, contextual process that can be learnt and developed, rather than a static trait or personality characteristic.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".