MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220935968 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058888

Effectiveness of educational interventions to develop patient safety knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes in undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4220935968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helena De Rezende, Aline Mirema Ferreira Vitorio, Alexandre Morais, Ana Cláudia Alcântara Garzin, Andressa Garcia Nicole, Ellen Regina Sevilla Quadrado, Daniela Campos de Andrade Lourenção, Maristela Santini Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLMedicinePatient safetyCritical appraisalCurriculumGrey literatureMEDLINEPsychological interventionPsycINFOSystematic reviewHealth careMedical educationNursingScopusGrading (engineering)Inclusion (mineral)Alternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety is a healthcare discipline that aims to prevent and reduce patient harm, risks and errors during the provision of healthcare. Given the size of the nursing workforce in the healthcare system the inclusion of patient safety in the undergraduate nursing curriculum is necessary to enhance a safe culture in the daily work of their future careers. To this end, it is essential to apply effective teaching strategies to develop patient safety competencies. This review will aim to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing patient safety knowledge, skills, behaviours and attitudes in undergraduate nursing students within the existing topic areas of the WHO Multi-professional Patient Safety Curriculum Guide. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Education Research Complete, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Medes and Grey literature such as ClinicalTrials.gov, Google Scholar, DART-Europe, ProQuest Dissertations, CAPES thesis and dissertations, The Virginia Henderson Global e-Repository, Mednar and Thesis Canada will be searched from July 2011 to January 2022. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data and assess the risk of bias for the included studies, using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation methodology. Studies will be pooled in the meta-analysis. Alternatively, the findings will be presented in narrative form, including tables and figures, to aid in data presentation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study raises no ethical issues. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at professional conferences and publications in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021254965.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.023
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207