Factors associated with gerontological career choice: The role of curriculum type and students’ attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Caring for a growing aging population presents a challenge in contemporary health care. This study aims to identify factors associated with nursing student’s career choice in older adult care and predictors of attitudes toward older adults. Such information is critical to inform effective gerontological nursing education.Methods: Undergraduate nursing students (N = 411) from three nursing schools in California participated in a cross-sectional, web-based survey.Results: In covariate-adjusted analyses, students who had prior experiences taking gerontology-related courses, working with older adults, living with older adults, being confident in providing older adults care, and having lower negative attitudes toward older adults were more likely to consider a future career in gerontological nursing. Students’ confidence in older adult care was negatively correlated with negative attitudes towards older adults.Conclusions: To increase students’ career choice in gerontology, nursing schools should provide more gerontology content in nursing curricula and explore avenues to increase student confidence in older adult care.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".