146 Undergraduate nursing students’ experiences with supporting patients with difficult health decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> 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. <h3>Methods</h3> 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. <h3>Results</h3> 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). <h3>Discussion</h3> 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. <h3>Conclusion</h3> 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".