MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973695637 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n1p24

A pilot assessment: Integrating a cystic fibrosis simulation scenario to enhance pre-licensure educational understanding of genomics

2019· article· en· W2973695637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leighsa Sharoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureCurriculumTeamworkQualitative propertyNursingPsychologyMedicineComprehensionMedical educationHealth careNurse educationQualitative researchCertificationComputer sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Integration of patient simulations into the nursing student curricula have been shown to be effective and innovative teaching enhancements leading to enhanced knowledge, clinical reasoning and judgment for students, whilst promoting optimal patient care. This pilot study aimed to explore how the use of a simulation, with a genetic component of a Cystic Fibrosis (CF) case scenario, improved the self-perceived knowledge comprehension of pre-licensure baccalaureate nursing students of a large diverse urban School of Nursing.Methods: Three assessment surveys were utilized to glean data: nine multiple choice questions explored factual content of CF pre/post simulation; five question survey explored self-perception of knowledge and one open-ended simplified critical incident report provided qualitative data.Results: Twenty-four pre-licensure third year nursing students participated (three groups of eight students). All participants agreed that their understanding of the genetic component of CF improved post simulation. Four major themes emerged from the qualitative data: genomics and nursing; patient education; teamwork exercise and patient-nurse relationship. Conclusions: Integrating a genetically-based condition into a simulation, whereby students are expected to research the condition, engage in patient education, facilitate effective and appropriate nursing care enriches their critical thinking, confidence, skills and knowledge acquisition.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207