Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards hepatitis B virus prevention among nursing students at a selected campus in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Hepatitis B virus continues to be among the significant global challenges, and its prevention is doubtable among nursing students due to the lack of knowledge or exposure to risky behaviors in their clinical practices. This study was conducted to assess nursing students at a selected campus in Rwanda about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards hepatitis B prevention.Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to conduct this study. Non-probability sampling, including convenience and snowball techniques, was used to determine the representation at all levels at a selected Campus from May to July 2018. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 was used for data entry. Descriptive and inferential statistics using Binary logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Rwanda approved the study, andparticipants' rights were protected.Results: Among 171 study participants, only 140 returned the completed questionnaires, which translates to a response rate of 82.4%. Among the students who participated in this study, most were males, 75 (53.5%). The respondents' mean age was 25 years old, and the maximum age was 43. Most of the participants were from level 1 52(37.1%). The findings revealed that nursing students have adequateknowledge and practices towards HBV prevention at 65% and 71%, respectively. However, their attitudes regarding HBVprevention were negative because 96% scored at most four questions right.Conclusion: Knowledge and practices regarding HBV prevention among nursing students were quite adequate. However, a significant proportion of nursing students do not have good attitudes. These findings highlight the need to increase knowledge about HBV among nursing students in clinical orientation meetings before starting their clinical placements and introducing infection prevention and control training when they are already in clinical settings. Keywords: Hepatitis B virus, knowledge, attitudes, practices, nursing students, Rwanda
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".