Supporting professional practice transition in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will describe educational programming that supports undergraduate student nurses' transition to practice and/or enhances practice readiness. INTRODUCTION: The period of transition from nursing student to professional nurse is fraught with challenges stemming from the evolving role and the increasing demands of independent practice. While transition-to-practice programming exists for new graduate nurses, there is less focus on preparing students in their final year of education. A scoping review will identify educational programming delivered to nursing students approaching graduation that facilitates transition-to-practice success and/or improves practice readiness. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider literature describing educational programming that supports transition-to-practice success and/or practice readiness and that demonstrates evidence of evaluation. Studies that involve primarily pre-licensure, undergraduate, or baccalaureate nursing students will be included. Reports of primary studies, reviews, dissertations and theses, conference proceedings, and nursing trade publications that describe quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods designs will be included. METHODS: The proposed review will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid), and Nursing and Allied Health (ProQuest) using a search strategy developed in consultation with an expert university librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract and assess the full text of each selected citation against inclusion criteria. Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics) and basic qualitative content analysis will be used to analyze the data, and results will be reported in narrative and graphic formats. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/2vsbq/.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".