A peek behind the curtain: An integrative review of sexual harassment of nursing students on clinical placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This integrative review aimed at systematically searching, analysing and synthesising multiple sources of evidence, to build a temporal understanding of nursing students' experiences of sexual harassment whilst on clinical placement, and to discuss the social context which enables this. BACKGROUND: Sexual harassment is highly prevalent in workplaces globally. Contemporary social understandings contextualise sexual harassment as a significant form of interpersonal violence. This is the first literature review to go beyond prevalence to synthesise the experience, implications and responses to sexual harassment encountered by student nurses on clinical placement. DESIGN: Whittemore and Knafl's (2005) integrative review methodology is used to structure a rigorous analysis and synthesis of evidence. METHODS: The PRISMA checklist supported sound reporting of the search strategy. Three databases (CINAHL, Scopus and Medline) were searched using a Boolean strategy. Papers with a significant focus on sexual harassment of nursing students in the clinical setting were included with no limitation on publication date. Papers were excluded if they were not published in English or were only published as abstracts. RESULTS: A synthesis of 26 papers demonstrated that sexual harassment has significant impacts on student nurses and the nursing profession. The intimacy of close body care, dominant social perceptions of nursing as women's work and the sexualisation of nurses increase student vulnerability to sexual harassment. Workplace power imbalances further exacerbate sexual harassment and shape responses to incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual harassment of nursing students is widespread and impacts student well-being and learning. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Education is a strong protective factor and should target students, clinicians, clinical facilitators and academics. Attention to workplace culture, and processes that support disclosure and reporting, is also required to meaningfully address the sexual harassment of nursing students.
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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".