Standard Precautions are for everyone: The role of HIV stigma and implications for nursing education in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Standard Precautions (SP) are infection control procedures universally applicable to every patient. Though SP reduces disease transmission, their implementation is dependent on the knowledge and skills of healthcare workers (HCWs). Poor knowledge regarding the appropriate use of SP can cause fear among HCWs, leading to stigma and discrimination while treating people living with HIV (PLWH). Stigma and discrimination are known barriers for PLWH to access HIV care services. The aim of the study was to assess nursing student knowledge of SP, SP self-efficacy and SP perceived efficacy of nursing students, and (2) to assess the association between SP knowledge, perceived efficacy, and intention to utilize unwarranted precautions, like using double gloves while treating PLWH. Methods: This paper analyzes baseline (non-randomized) data of a cluster randomized controlled trial amongst 1868 Indian nursing students. Data was collected using computer-administered structured questionnaire. The associations between the measures were done using multiple, logistic and poisson regression models. Results: Although 97% nursing students could identify SP, only 35.5% understood that they need to be used with all patients. Awareness of the importance of using SP with all patients was positively associated with self-efficacy. Students performing high-risk tasks frequently were significantly more likely to be confident in their ability to correctly use SP, but also had higher intention to use unwarranted precautions. Conclusions: Existing teaching and training programs for HCWs need to provide clear guidelines and emphasize on the correct use of SP with all patients. This will increase both skills and confidence in their abilities (self-efficacy).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".