Nursing students' knowledge and related factors towards skin cancer: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aims to examine the nursing students' knowledge and related factors towards skin cancer. In order to conduct this comprehensive and review study, articles were searched from the earliest to April 1, 2023 using keywords extracted from Medical Subject Headings such as "knowledge", "skin cancer", and "nursing students" in various international electronic databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Persian electronic databases such as Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database. The appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies included in this article. In total, 2,841 nursing students participated in five cross-sectional studies. The average age of the students was 20.93 (SD=1.89). 78.07% of the students in this study were female. 19.70% of students had a history of skin cancer in their family member. The average nursing students' knowledge and related factors towards skin cancer was 14.78 (SD=2.68) out of 25 which suggests a moderate level of knowledge. Factors such as year of study, female gender, age, using cosmetics, using depilatory wax, using epilating appliance, skin cancer caused by sun exposure, and protection of information have a significant positive relationship with nursing students' knowledge about skin cancer. However, knowledge had a negative relationship with factors such as using shaving, having mole, and having swelling. Additionally, the factors of father education, place of residence, sunburn frequency, source information had a significant relationship with nursing students' knowledge about skin cancer. According to the results of this review, the knowledge of nursing students in skin cancer is moderate. Therefore, nursing professors may contribute to the development of nursing students' knowledge by providing an online or physical education platform related to skin cancer.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".