Culture of patient care among international nursing students: a focused ethnographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to describe and explain the culture of patient care in international nursing students. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using focused ethnography. Participants (n = 21) were purposefully selected from non-Iranian international students and their nursing instructors. Data collection included semi-structured interviews, and field-note taking. Data were analyzed with the Roper and Shapira inductive approach of ethnographic content analysis. RESULTS: The cultural model of the study included the acquisition of cultural competence through acceptance of differences and finding commonalities. Subcategories were: "avoiding cultural bias", "trying to be on the path of adaptation", "appealing to the support and companionship of colleagues", "coping with culture shock", "acculturation", "getting help from cultural intelligence", "cultural empathy", and "language and communication enhancement". CONCLUSION: Cultural competence is teachable. The pattern of formation is through accepting differences and searching for commonalities. Suggestions for promoting the culture of care among international students include effective use of peer groups and teaching different national ethnicities and cultures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".