Planning and development of empathic educational pedagogical practice in the process of death and dying: A pilot test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the process of developing an Empathic Educational Pedagogical Practice on the process of death and dying with nursing students.Methods: Cross-sectional study, carried out in a public university with 47 students. For the development of this educational practice, low-cost materials elaborated by the professors themselves were used. A pilot test was developed with students from the fifth phase of the nursing course, where these students had the opportunity to dive into the context of empathy, besides developing communication, welcoming and active listening skills. The students' feelings towards the development of this practice were also identified. For data collection, a semi-structured questionnaire was used, with analysis using simple descriptive statistics and content analysis.Results: The students had the opportunity to experience stages related to the process of death and dying, which involve the news of palliative care; communication of death and coping with the grieving process. As for the feelings before death, the following emerged: fear, emptiness, sadness, end. In the skills, the students scored the development of active listening (100%), identification of the different stages of mourning (85.5%) and the ability to empathize with situations of death and dying (100%). 85% of the students considered it an excellent pedagogical strategy.Conclusion and implications for practice: The pedagogical practice allowed the experience of empathy, identification of feelings and the compression of the scenario of death and dying. In addition, it was interpreted by professors and students as a tool capable of supporting future professionals who will develop health care for people who experience the process of death and dying.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".