Nursing Students and Nurses’ Recommendations Aiming at Improving the Development of the Humanistic Caring Competency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most nursing education programs prepare their students to embody humanism and caring as it is expected by several regulatory bodies. Ensuring this embodiment in students and nurses remains a challenge because there is a lack of evidence about its progressive development through education and practice. PURPOSE: This manuscript provides a description of nursing students' and nurses' recommendations that can foster the development of humanistic caring. METHODS: Interpretive phenomenology was selected as the study's methodological approach. Participants (n = 26) were recruited from a French-Canadian university and an affiliated university hospital. Data was collected through individual interviews. Data analysis consisted of an adaptation of Benner's (1994) phenomenological principles that resulted in a five-stage interpretative process. RESULTS: The following five themes emerged from the phenomenological analysis of participants' recommendations: 1) pedagogical strategies, 2) educators' approach, 3) considerations in teaching humanistic caring, 4) work overload, and 5) volunteerism and externship. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest the existence of a challenge when using mannikins in high-fidelity simulations with the intention of developing humanistic caring. The findings also reaffirm the importance of giving concrete and realistic exemplars of humanistic caring to students in order to prevent them from making "communication" synonymous to "humanization of care".
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".