MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400452936 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.145

146 Undergraduate nursing students’ experiences with supporting patients with difficult health decisions

2024· article· en· W4400452936 on OpenAlexaffabout
Krystina B. Lewis, Olivia Yeh, Chelsea Poserio, Michelle Leifur Reid, Dawn Stacey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationNursingComputer sciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There are few opportunities in undergraduate nursing curriculum for students to acquire knowledge and skills in shared decision-making (SDM). Through a theory-based learning assignment, we aimed to explore how undergraduate nursing students understand and participate in SDM in their clinical placements. Methods Descriptive analysis of an undergraduate nursing learning assignment. Upon completion of the Ottawa Decision Support Tutorial, undergraduate nursing students posted a virtual reflective note about a clinical experience in which they were involved in a patient’s difficult health decision. From these reflections, we inductively identified decisional needs, interventions, and outcomes, then mapped them onto the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). We used content analysis to synthesize the factors influencing nursing students’ participation in SDM. Results Preliminary results from 34 reflective notes showed that nursing students are most often involved in difficult medical/surgical and end-of-life decisions with their patients. Frequent decisional needs included inadequate knowledge (n=21;61.8%), and complex decisional characteristics (n=20;58.8%). Sixteen (47.1%) students raised personal and clinical characteristics as decisional needs;12 of which (75%) did not explicitly identify them as decisional needs. Decision aids were the most cited intervention (n=27;79.4%). Quality decision was commonly defined as values-based and informed, yet being informed was prioritized over personal values. Factors influencing nursing student participation in SDM included decision support knowledge, interpersonal skills, ensuring accessibility of decision aids for diverse populations (e.g., cultures), and within specific contexts (e.g., end-of-life). Discussion As health systems are increasingly seeking ways to engage patients/families in decision- making, every effort should be made to equip future nurses with decision support knowledge, skills, and resources to support its integration into practice. Conclusion A theory-based learning assignment permitted undergraduate nursing students to identify difficult health decisions, decisional needs, interventions to overcome them, and outcomes. Greater curricular focus is required to prepare nursing students for SDM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207