Correlates and Predictors of Resilience among Baccalaureate Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A growing body of literature recognizes the importance of resilience in the nursing profession. Both mindfulness and resilience aid in handling stress, stress increases the risk of rumination and/or worry especially in females and they are more empathetic than other healthcare students. AIM: To identify correlates and predictors of the resilience among nursing students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: year B.Sc Nursing) from Government College of Nursing and NIMHANS College of Nursing in Bangalore, India. The following instruments were used to collect the data, Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ), Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Data was analysed using Pearson's correlation test and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Resilience is significantly correlated with mindfulness, perseverative thinking and empathy in nursing students. Based on regression analysis this model accounted for almost 33% of variance in resilience. This result is of interest as mindfulness alone explained 23% of the variance and unproductive Repeated Negative Thinking (RNT) and RNT consuming mental capacity predicted 8% and 2% respectively. CONCLUSION: These results support the importance of resilience and mindfulness in nursing students. Hence, resilience and/or mindfulness enhancing interventions should be inculcated in nursing education.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".