MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402310713 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v16n9p12

Knowledge and Application of Nursing Ethical Principles by Nurses at an Intermediate Hospital, Namibia

2024· article· en· W4402310713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ottilie N. Niikondo, Kristofina Amakali, Hileni N Niikondo

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Namibia
KeywordsNursingMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nurses are to possess the knowledge and dutifully apply nursing ethical principles of respect for person, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice in caring for clients. Incidents that portray poor knowledge and application of nursing ethical principles have been previously reported at health facilities in Namibia. AIM: To assess the knowledge and application of ethical principles of nursing by nurses in rendering care to patients at Onandjokwe Intermediate Hospital, Oshikoto region in Namibia. METHODS: A Cross-sectional descriptive, and analytical methodology was applied to describe the knowledge and application of nursing ethical principles by nurses, among a study population of 257 nurses, of which 107 were registered nurses and 150 were enrolled nurses- a subcategory of qualified nurses and out of which 37 declined to participate in the study. The data were collected from the remaining all population sample of 220 all nurses. Descriptive statistics on the respondents’ knowledge and applications of ethical principles, and the relationship of the respondents’ demographic characteristics as independent variables and the knowledge and applications of ethical principles as dependent variables were analyzed. RESULTS: The findings revealed poor knowledge and poor application of ethical principle of respect for person or autonomy (42%; 27,9%), non-maleficence (45.4%; 54.8%), beneficence (48.8%; 38.8%) and justice (40.5%; 43.4%) among the respondents. A significance association was found between good knowledge of non-maleficence and being a registered nurse with p-value =0.01, as well as of good knowledge and working experience of five years and more with a p=0.01 and p=0.02 respectively. Male nurses were also more knowledgeable about justice (p-value=0.03) than the female counterparts. CONCLUSION: The study revealed poor knowledge and poor application of all four ethical principles among the respondents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.473 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→