MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519954926 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n2p18

Enhancing informal patient education in nursing practice: A review of literature

2016· review· en· W2519954926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick Dunn, Karen Milheim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformal learningCurriculumInformal educationPatient educationNursingQuality (philosophy)Health careMedicineMedical educationPsychologyPedagogyHigher educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : Informal patient education is a common practice used by nurses in the healthcare setting. Informal methods use quick delivery instruction, and often promote self-directed learning and focus on specific tasks, based on the needs of the patient. While there are effective models for more structured patient education programs, they are not typically applicable to informal instructional situations, such as at a patient’s bedside, or upon discharge. The purpose of this paper is to: a) define how informal patient education manifests itself in healthcare settings, b) identify, through a review of literature, potential issues arising from informal patient education practices, and c) suggest ways nurses can further support and enhance informal patient education to help overcome these issues. Methods : This review of literature explores research and findings relevant to informal patient education in healthcare settings, including an examination of potential issues related to this often spontaneous, less-structured approach. Also, this review reveals findings that inform practitioners and researchers in this field with further ways to improve informal patient education practices. Results : While informal patient education holds a valuable place in healthcare settings, it also presents issues related to areas such as quality control, assessment, and curriculum. Without addressing these issues, research shows that healthcare providers, including nurses, risk a myriad of negative outcomes affecting both the patient and the organization. An analysis of the literature informed recommendations of strategies to support and enhance informal patient education, guided by four areas: desire to learn, learning by doing, feedback, and reflection. Discussion: While patient education is frequently informal, it can be supported and enhanced to help overcome challenges brought about by this type of delivery. The discussion provides specific ways nurses can help enhance informal instruction in practice. Conclusions : Informal patient education remains prevalent in patient care, but it has drawbacks. By incorporating new strategies in practice, nurses can work towards enhancing and improving instances of informal instruction to make it more effective and productive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207