Measuring Change in Nurses’ Perceptions About Family Nursing Competency Following a 6-Day Educational Intervention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes nurses’ perspectives about their experience of being involved in a 6-day educational intervention which focused on the development of competency in family nursing practice with a particular emphasis on family nursing conversations. The foundational knowledge of the educational intervention was based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model (CFAM) and the Calgary Family Intervention Model (CFIM). A research design incorporating quantitative and qualitative measurement was used. Before and after the family nursing educational intervention, nurse participants ( n = 18) completed the Families’ Importance in Nursing Care–Nurses’ Attitudes (FINC-NA) instrument. The outcomes were analyzed using paired-samples t tests. FINC-NA scores increased by 6.94 points ( SD = 5.66, p < .001). To complement the quantitative findings, in-depth interviews were conducted with all of the participants. Participants reported increased awareness of the importance of families in nursing care. In addition to an increase in positive attitudes about families, participants perceived that their knowledge and skills regarding family nursing conversations were more comprehensive. A 6-day educational intervention with a focus on reflection appears useful in helping nurses to “think family” and encouraging perceptions of increased competence in family nursing conversations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it