Self-care behaviors and practices of nursing students: Review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-care is a vital component of nursing practice and is essential for the well-being of human beings, that is, both patients and nurses. However, nurses and nursing students tend to focus more on self-care of their patients and often pay little or no attention to personal self-care. This literature review explored self-care behaviors and practices of nursing students in general as well as across academic years of the study. In total, 11 studies were reviewed and critically appraised to identify current trends regarding nursing students’ self-care practices and behaviors in nursing literature. Nursing students realized the importance of maintaining their diet, sleep, and activity level to improve physical and physiological health. However, they tend to neglect self-care practices which could improve their emotional and psychological health because of academic stress, workload, and inadequate knowledge about the strategies to improve self-care in this domain. There is limited evidence for drawing any conclusions regarding students’ use of complementary therapies for self-care, the difference between self-care practices of nursing and non-nursing students, the usefulness of different interventions for improving students’ self-care practices, and the differences between self-care practices and behaviors of students across academic years.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".