Development and validation of educational videos addressing indwelling catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Developed and validate educational videos addressing the female and male indwelling catheterization techniques in adult patients.Methods: Methodological study divided into two stages: development and validation of a script and the filming, editing and validation of videos. The script was written in the storyboard format, which was validated by eight nurse experts using the Delphi technique. The educational videos were filmed according to this validated script and were validated by 71 undergraduate nursing students using a five-point Likert scale.Results: The final script was composed of eight items: concept, reasons, material, instructions, male and female indwelling catheterization, indwelling catheter care, and complications. Five rounds were needed for the script to be validated by experts, a process that lasted nine months. The scenes were filmed, edited and inserted in the animated texts. The final versions were watched by 71 first-year undergraduate nursing students from a public university located in São Paulo. The mean scores assigned by the students to the eight items were greater than four. The item that obtained the highest mean was “complications related to indwelling catheterization”, with a mean score of 4.80. The item with the lowest score was “reasons” with a mean of 4.38. Assessment of the set of items (“did you understand this video?”) also obtained a mean score of 4.38. Agreement among students was also significant (p < .001).Conclusions: The script was developed and validated by experts, while the educational videos that resulted from this script were validated by first-year undergraduate nursing students.
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 | 0.028 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".