Self‐awareness in nursing: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To outline and examine the literature about self-awareness in nursing and to identify areas for future research and practice. BACKGROUND: Self-awareness is important for the personal and professional development of nurses, for developing an effective nurse-patient relationship and for improving nursing abilities. Despite its importance in nursing and therapeutic nurse-patient relationship and its evolving nature, the knowledge base for self-awareness in nursing remains under-examined. DESIGN: A scoping review using PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: A five-step approach: (a) identification of research question; (b) identification of relevant studies using a three-step search: keywords search within PubMed and CINAHL, literature search within PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Google Scholar, and literature search of references lists; (c) study selection; (d) data extraction and charting; (e) data collation, summarisation and reporting, was used. FINDINGS: Of 1,531 identified sources, 76 full-text sources were read and 29 English language sources, published from January 1980 until January 2018, which included nurses or nursing students, were reviewed. Two themes: perspectives on self-awareness and strategies for enhancing self-awareness emerged. Under these themes, conceptualisation of self-awareness; its antecedents and value; and theory-based, educational and personal strategies for its enhancement were described. There is sufficient literature regarding self-awareness conceptualisation and theory-based strategies for its enhancement, but inconclusive evidence regarding value of self-awareness, and educational and personal strategies for its improvement. CONCLUSION: There is limited research on self-awareness. Most of the literature comprises of theoretical discussions and opinions which adequately provide a conceptual understanding of self-awareness. However, more empirical and applied research is needed to apply the available theoretical knowledge in practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review delineated theoretical, educational and personal strategies for nurses to improve their self-awareness and indicated that engagement in self-awareness at relational and contextual levels is essential for developing nurse-patient relationship.
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 | 0.027 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".