Impact on Chinese nurses roles after study abroad: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Studying abroad to expand professional development is growing worldwide with nurses traveling to different countries to expand their knowledge and skills. The impact a study abroad experience has on one’s professional role and personal life upon return is an important area of study. Depending on the individual and the level of support from hospital leadership, academic institutions and family, the experience could have a positive or negative impact on their professional role and personal life when returning to their home country. The objective of this study was to understand how a one-year study abroad experience impacted 1) Chinese nurses’ clinical practice, 2) their professional role, and 3) their personal life 6 months after returning home.Methods: A 10-item 6-month post entry electronic survey using Likert scale (1 = very weak to 7 very strong) and open-ended questions was developed. 29 Chinese nurses were invited to complete the survey via email invitation. Quantitative analysis was conducted on the first 5 questions and content analysis was conducted on the remaining 5 questions.Results: A total of 16 participants (55%) completed the survey. For the first 5 questions, a change was noted from students’ responses at program completion. For the last 5 questions, detailed examples of obstacles and challenges faced in their professional role and personal life following their return were shared.Conclusions: Findings suggest that while studying abroad influences one’s professional role and practice initially, the influence may not be enduring as the originating culture may have a stronger impact. Hosting and visiting organizations need to prepare individuals who study abroad to transition home successfully to meet both the professional role and personal life challenges one may face.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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".