A Pilot Feasibility Study of an Undergraduate Nursing Student Harm Reduction Community Health Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nursing students may struggle with community placements, preferring hospital placements because of the emphasis on acute care. There are limited numbers of community health nurses available for students, so settings outside of health services can be used as venues for community health placements. Purpose: We aimed to evaluate a pilot placement outside of health services setting in the context of a research study focused on harm reduction for people who use substances, to assess whether the placement was effective in engaging students with the full scope of community health nursing (CHN). Methods: We evaluated students’ experiences in this clinical placement using a thematic analysis approach to semi-structured qualitative interviews. We recruited students after their placements were completed and their final grades were submitted. Results: Three students participated in this evaluation and reported an increased understanding of CHN principles, such as social justice and equity, to address how social determinants of health affect clients. They also gained insight into the value of evidence-based practice and the full scope of CHN, particularly how it intersects with harm reduction. The nursing instructor role was critical to the success of the placement. Students wanted to have a higher level of interaction with people facing structural barriers to health during the placement. Conclusion: Our placement outside of health services settings was effective in expanding nursing students’ understanding of the full scope of CHN practice, including social determinants of health. Future studies can expand on this pilot to assess the value of diverse community placements for students.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".