Retention of RN-to-BSN Students: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Student retention is problematic in higher education. RNs who desire to complete a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (RN-to-BSN) program face multiple barriers, and undergraduate nursing programs must be creative and comprehensive in their efforts to retain students and support their progression. Method Toronto and Remmington's method guided this integrative review to identify strategies undergraduate nursing programs employ to retain RN-to-BSN students. A systematic search of seven databases was conducted to identify literature published in the United States between 2011 and 2024. Results Twenty articles were analyzed and synthesized, then organized using Jeffrey's nursing universal retention and success model. Most of the literature reviewed focused on environmental and professional integration factors, with less of the literature addressing student affective factors. Conclusion Although programs may differ, a framework that considers a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors is imperative in addressing issues specific to RN-to-BSN student retention. [ J Nurs Educ . 2025;64(7):429–435.]
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".