Reflective journaling to decrease anxiety among undergraduate nursing students in the clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Many nursing students experience anxiety in the clinical setting. Increased anxiety impairs students’ ability to learn and can negatively affect patient safety. To promote student learning and patient safety, it is imperative that nurse educators identify and implement strategies to decrease nursing students’ anxiety. The purpose of this qualitative study was to determine how undergraduate nursing students perceive the impact of writing reflective journals on their anxiety level associated with their first clinical rotation experience early in their program of study.Methods: Participants were randomly assigned by their clinical group to either write guided reflective journals, non-guided reflective journals, or no reflective journals during their first clinical rotation where they provided patient care. Five individuals from each intervention group were randomly selected to participate in an interview. Themes related to the participants’ perceptions of the impact of writing reflective journals on their anxiety were determined through qualitative analysis.Results and implications: Participants who wrote guided or non-guided reflective journals experienced decreased anxiety associated with their first clinical rotation. Participants in the non-journaling group expressed that they would have benefitted from having a journal assignment. Four themes were identified related to experiences with writing journals: allowed time, identified feelings, assisted with processing, and increased confidence. The findings of this study support the use of reflective journals as a pedagogical intervention to decrease nursing students’ anxiety associated with the first clinical experience. Additional benefits of the reflective journaling included taking time to identify and process feelings and increased confidence in future clinical experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".