Nursing students' knowledge and related factors towards palliative care: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review is to assess the extent of nursing students' knowledge concerning palliative care and identify potential factors that may impact it. To carry out their comprehensive and review research, items were searched from the starting point to March 1, 2023, applying keywords gathered from Medical Subject Headings such as "knowledge", "palliative care", and "nursing students" in global online databases involving Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Iranian electronic library including Iranmedex and Scientific Information Database. Using the assessment instrument for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool), the quality of the studies included in this systematic review was determined. In total, 4,320 nursing students participated in eleven cross-sectional studies. The average nursing student's knowledge of palliative care was 8.94 (standard deviation [SD]=3.57) out of 20; the results have shown an insufficient level of knowledge. Factors such as age, female gender, encounter with terminally ill patients, receiving a non-university educational session, year of study, being mature, and receiving a university educational session have a potential positive correlation with nursing students' knowledge of palliative care. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the following variables had a statistically significant association with nursing students' level of knowledge in palliative care: academic year, perception of death as the cessation of life, receipt of university educational sessions, teaching content related to palliative care, type of university, academic grade, gender, place of birth, monthly family income, religious beliefs, and experience of providing care to a dying family member. Thus, it is recommended that future studies focus on implementing appropriate interventions for nursing students to enhance their level of knowledge regarding palliative care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| 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".