Self-perception of sexual harassment: A comparison between female medical and nursing students during clinical practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual harassment (SH) may occur anywhere in the world, including the hospital setting. Medical and nursing students are not excluded from being sexually harassed during their clinical practice. This study examined the experiences and compared the perception of SH between female medical and nursing students during their clinical practice in Perak, Malaysia. METHODS: A comparative cross-sectional study design was done among female medical and nursing students during their clinical practice. RESULTS: Total respondents were 481 female medical and nursing students (response rate of 96.2%). About 17.8% of medical and 18.8% of nursing students had been sexually harassed. The most common harasser for medical and nursing students were males (51.2% and 48.8%, respectively), patients (39.7% and 60.3%, respectively), age 30s (41.0% and 59.0%, respectively) and 40s (65.5% and 34.5%, respectively), occurred in medical wards for both groups (50% each). From the SH checklist, 76.9% of medical and 73.5% of nursing students had experienced at least one item of the total 18 items. The abnormal sexual desire of an individual was chosen as the reason for SH by 44.9% of medical and 33.8% of nursing students. The majority of respondents said the issue of SH in clinical practice was very serious. Around 32% of medical students choose the fear of being disadvantaged during clinical practice as the reason why the victims kept quiet while 41.5% of nursing students chose because of not having evidence. Both groups of students suggested establishing rules and laws relating to SH (30.8% and 35.5%, respectively) as effective methods to prevent it. About 75.3% of medical and 81.6% of nursing students agreed that it was very necessary for implementing a SH prevention program. DISCUSSION: Although SH is not a new issue, there is insufficient exposure about SH among medical and nursing students. This can be corrected by increasing their knowledge and awareness about SH.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it