Investigation of Nursing Students’ Verbal Communication Quality during Patients’ Education in Zahedan Hospitals: Southeast of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper communication with patients plays an important role in nursing cares. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was Investigation of nursing students' verbal communication quality during patients' Education in Zahedan hospitals: southeast of Iran. MATERIALS & METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 95 nursing students in two Educational hospitals of Zahedan, Iran from November 2013 through March 2014.sampling method was census. Researcher made checklist was used to gather the data. Statistical tests of frequency distribution, mean, SD and chi-squire were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Most of the students in the start N=45 (47.4%) and during N=48(50.5%) of verbal communication with the patients had the good verbal communication but in the end of communication the patients most students N=33 (34.7%) had average verbal communication and N=31 (32.6%) of them had poor verbal communication. CONCLUSION: Since quality of verbal communication in the end of patient education is poor and good communication between the patient and nurse is the basic component of patient care and its Educational plans should be coordinated with clinical practices and be parallel to it, also effective methods must be used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".