Integrating Psychological Well-Being and Self-Care Behaviors Into Undergraduate Nursing Education Curriculum
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to review literature on integrating psychological well-being and self-care behaviors into the university undergraduate nursing education curriculum. BACKGROUND: Burnout has been recognized as a key contributing factor to nursing shortages. Interventions aiming to improve coping skills and reduce stress have been shown to be effective. Learning coping skills during nursing education would benefit students greatly during their study and beyond. METHOD: The literature review searched four electronic databases including CINAHL, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to select relevant peer-reviewed articles. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most showed that building resilience and improving self-care behaviors have positive effects on nursing students' psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: To enhance coping skills, reduce stress, and improve well-being in nursing students, university nursing programs should integrate psychological well-being and self-care behaviors into their nursing curricula.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it