The educational benefit of integrating genomic principles into an evolving simulation scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Simulation-supported scenarios were infused with genomic principles to increase undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge of the disease of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) and its genomic implications. The primary aim explored how a genetic component in an evolving CF simulation scenario (at 3 weeks old, 6 years old, 26 years old and 47 years old) could enhance pre-licensure baccalaureate nursing students' self-perceived ability to integrate genomics into their nursing knowledge base. A second aim explored students’ confidence in their ability to participate in patient care. Methods: Three assessment surveys gleaned data from a total of six intervention groups (n = 103): (1) identical nine-item pre/post simulation learner survey of CF knowledge gleaned students' basic genomic knowledge; (2) five-item post-simulation, self-perception of learner knowledge survey gathered students' self-perception of their CF genomic; and (3) one open-ended qualitative question that asked participants to share if they “felt that this scenario enhanced their overall ability to integrate genomics into their knowledge base of nursing and nursing care.” Six control groups (n = 46) did not receive the CF scenarios but completed the nine multiple choice survey once.  Results: All of the six collective intervention groups total post-simulation knowledge averages improved or remained the same as pre-simulation CF knowledge. Comparatively, all total post-simulation CF knowledge averages were considerably higher than the control groups CF knowledge average. Participants’ overall theoretical knowledge of CF post simulation was significantly higher than the control group. All five learner CF knowledge survey items had the majority of participants agreeing their genomic knowledge improved post simulation. Three major themes, with seven sub-themes, emerged from the rich qualitative data. Conclusions: Simulation solidifies comprehension of genomics application of knowledge from didactic theory to practice experiences, providing a reliable and valid pedagogical educational strategy, not only for cognitive, psychomotor and affective learning, but also for genomic proficiency. Integrating an evolving CF simulation scenario can facilitate concepts of genomics, nursing care, and patient advocacy while enhancing students’ confidence and comfort level.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".