MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automedicação: prática entre graduandos de enfermagem

2019· article· pt· W2917264663 on OpenAlexaff
Waléria Bastos de Andrade Gomes Nogueira, Damião Romero Firmino Alves, Gesualdo Gonçalves de Abrantes, Herbert Kauan Alves Martins, Andréa Márcia da Cunha Lima, Francisco Fernandes Vieira Ramos, Anne Carolinne Marie dos Santos, Gérson da Silva Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Enfermagem UFPE on line · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health in Brazil
Canadian institutionsMonsanto (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesExploratory analysisMedicinePsychologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RESUMO Objetivo: verificar a ocorrência da prática de automedicação entre acadêmicos de um curso de graduação em Enfermagem. Método: trata-se de um estudo quantitativo, exploratório e descritivo, realizado com 100 graduandos de Enfermagem por meio de um questionário, sendo a análise com o auxílio do software estatístico SPSS, versão 21.1. Apresentam-se os resultados em forma de tabelas. Resultados: constata-se que 99,0% dos investigados afirmaram praticar a automedicação, enquanto apenas 1,0% referiu nunca ter feito uso de medicamentos sem a prescrição de profissionais habilitados legalmente. Conclusão: verificou-se que a automedicação é uma prática comum entre os acadêmicos do curso de Enfermagem. Enfatiza-se, ainda, que o consumidor final não é o único culpado por esta situação, sendo necessárias, portanto, ações de promoção e educação em saúde na instituição pesquisada, com vista ao uso racional de medicamentos. Descritores: Automedicação; Enfermagem; Estudantes; Medicamentos sem Prescrição; Risco; Educação em Saúde.ABSTRACTObjective: to verify the incidence of the practice of self-medication among undergraduates from a Nursing Course. Method: this is a quantitative study, exploratory and descriptive, performed with 100 students by means of a questionnaire, being the analysis with the aid of the statistical software SPSS, version 21.1. Present the results in the form of tables. Results: it is noted that 99.0% of the investigated reported practicing self-medication, while only 1.0% reported never having made use of medications without a prescription of legally qualified professionals. Conclusion: we found that the self-medication is a common practice among nursing students. It also emphasizes that the final consumer is not the only guilty in this situation, being necessary; therefore, actions of promotion and education in health in the researched institution, with a view to rational use of medicines. Descriptors: Self-Medication; Nursing; Students; Nonprescription Drugs; Risk; Health Education.RESUMENObjetivo: verificar la existencia de la práctica de la auto-medicación entre académicos de un curso de pregrado en enfermería. Método: se trata de un estudio cuantitativo, exploratorio y descriptivo realizado con 100 estudiantes, por medio de un cuestionario, el análisis con la ayuda del software estadístico SPSS, versión 21.1. Presentados los resultados en forma de tablas. Resultados: se observó que el 99,0% de los investigados informó de practicar la automedicación, mientras que sólo el 1,0% reportó nunca haber hecho uso de medicamentos sin prescripción legal de profesionales cualificados. Conclusión: hemos encontrado que el medicamento es una práctica común entre los académicos del curso de Enfermería. También subraya que el consumidor final no es el único culpable en esta situación, siendo necesario, por lo tanto, acciones de promoción y educación en salud en la institución de investigación, con miras a la utilización racional de los medicamentos. Descriptores: Automedicación; Enfermería; Estudiantes; Medicamentos sin Prescripción; Riesgo; Educación en Salud.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Enfermagem UFPE on lineSame topicPublic Health in BrazilFrench-language works237,207