Impact assessment of pharmacovigilance-related educational intervention on nursing students’ knowledge, attitude and practice: A pre-post study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the impact of a pharmacovigilance education module for nursing students.Methods: In this prospective, pre-post interventional study, the 2nd year diploma in Nursing students (n = 38) were the ‘test’ group (who received intervention), and the 1st and 3rd year students were the control group (n = 78); total n = 116. Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) responses were taken at baseline (0 day), 30 days, 90 days and 180 days from both the groups. Improvements in the KAP scores following the intervention was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test at alpha = .05, and the feedback was obtained using a ‘Likert scale’ having 20 questions; maximum possible score was 100.Results: The median (IQR) overall baseline scores of knowledge were 11 (10-12), the attitude/practice scores were 22 (20.25-22.00) and the total scores was 32.5 (31-34); the maximum possible score was 40. Almost all (n = 113; 97.4%) of them felt adverse drug reactions reporting was necessary and were interested in learning about adverse drug reactions. The baseline KAP scores were significantly higher among the second- and third-year students compared to the first year (p < .001). Upon intervention, a significant improvement was seen in knowledge scores between the baseline and first follow-up (p = .018) and between second and third follow-up (p = .001) in the test group. The median (IQR) feedback score was 85 (80.7-88.2).Conclusions: Students had better attitude/practice scores, but a poor knowledge score at baseline. This study confirmed the feasibility of conducting a pharmacovigilance module for nursing students in Nepal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".