Developing and Pilot Testing E-Learning Training for Pediatric Nursing Burn Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Nurses caring for pediatric patients who have burns need to be properly trained to provide optimal care. The aims of this pilot study were to (1) develop a pediatric nursing burn care e-learning training for novice nurses; (2) assess the feasibility and acceptability of this educational intervention; and (3) evaluate the preliminary effects of this intervention on novice nurses' knowledge of pediatric nursing burn care. Method A quasi-experimental, one-group, pre-test–posttest design was used. Results Feasibility was achieved because all of the participants completed the study. A significant difference was observed in the mean knowledge level of the novice nurses from before training to after training (87.7% ± 8.7% vs. 58.6% ± 14.5%; p < .001). The novice nurses' had a mean satisfaction of 95.5% after the intervention. Conclusion This new, evidence-based pediatric nursing burn care e-learning training appeared to be feasible. The novice nurses found it to be satisfactory, and it improved their knowledge regarding pediatric burn care. [ J Contin Educ Nurs . 2022;53(5):232–240.]
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".