What Makes Nursing Students Satisfied with Their Academic Advising and Counseling Services: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Nursing education is demanding, necessitating supportive services such as academic advising to help students achieve their academic goals. Purpose: Although academic advising services are well established, research evaluating those services is minimal. Thus, this study aims to determine the predictors of academic advising satisfaction among nursing students. Methods: This cross-sectional study used an online survey for undergraduate nursing students from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Results: A total sample of 1,134 students completed the survey. Students with higher grade point average (GPA) (OR: 1.41, 95% CI, 1.07-1.87) and frequent meetings with the advisor (OR: 2.91, 95% CI, 2.10-4.04) were more likely to be satisfied with academic advising. However, fourth-year students (OR: 0.48, 95% CI, 0.30-0.75) and those who self-reported any mental disorders (OR: 0.54, 95% CI, 0.38-0.76) were less likely to be satisfied with their academic advising. Conclusion: Future research should explore these students' options for improving academic advising services.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".