Nurses' perspectives of self‐awareness in nursing practice: A descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-awareness is essential for nurses for improving nurse-patient relationship and patient care. There are many theories about self-awareness, but scant research explores nurses' perspectives regarding self-awareness and its significance for themselves and patient care. This study explores nurses' perspectives regarding self-awareness in nursing, the importance of self-awareness for nurses, and its influence on patient care. We used a descriptive qualitative design. Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted, from October to December 2018, with a purposive sample of 13 nurses at two hospitals in Pakistan. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Five themes and 13 subthemes were generated. The themes included the meaning of self-awareness: a personal, professional, and conscientious attribute, significance of self-awareness for nurses, self-aware nurses and its impact on patient care, behaviors, and actions signifying self-awareness, and what is needed to enhance self-awareness. Self-awareness can increase nurses' confidence in managing challenging situations and providing culturally competent care to patients from various cultural and religious orientations.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".