Retracted: Comparative Effectiveness of Health Communication Strategies in Nursing: A Mixed Methods Study of Internet, mHealth, and Social Media Versus Traditional Methods
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Effective communication is vital in health care, especially for nursing students who are the future of health care delivery. In Iraq's nursing education landscape, characterized by challenges such as resource constraints and infrastructural limitations, understanding communication modalities is crucial. Objective: This mixed methods study conducted in 2 nursing colleges aims to explore and compare the effectiveness of health communication on the web, through mobile health (mHealth) applications, and via social media among nursing students in Iraq. The research addresses a gap in understanding communication modalities specific to Iraq and explores the perspectives, experiences, and challenges faced by nursing students. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample (n=30), and a structured survey was distributed to a larger sample (n=300) representing diverse educational programs. The study used a nuanced approach to gather insights into the preferences and usage patterns of nursing students regarding communication modalities. The study was conducted between January 12, 2023, and May 5, 2023. Results: Qualitative findings highlighted nursing students' reliance on the web for educational materials, the significant role of mHealth applications in clinical skill development, and the emergence of social media platforms as community-building tools. Quantitative results revealed high-frequency web use (276/300, 92%) for educational purposes, regular mHealth application usage (204/300, 68%) in clinical settings, and active engagement on social media platforms (240/300, 80%). Traditional methods such as face-to-face interactions (216/300, 72%) and practical experiences (255/300, 85%) were preferred for developing essential skills. Conclusions: The study underscores nursing students' preference for an integrated approach, recognizing the complementary strengths of traditional and digital methods. Challenges include concerns about information accuracy and ethical considerations in digital spaces. The findings emphasize the need for curriculum adjustments that seamlessly integrate diverse communication modalities to create a dynamic learning environment. Educators play a crucial role in shaping this integration, emphasizing the enduring value of face-to-face interactions and practical experiences while harnessing the benefits of digital resources. Clear guidelines on professional behavior online are essential. Overall, the study expands the understanding of communication modalities among nursing students in Iraq and provides valuable insights for health care education stakeholders globally.
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 | 0.060 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".