Examining Incivility, Stress, Well-Being, and Program Satisfaction of Undergraduate Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the extent of incivility in nursing education is critical for creating potential interventions. A survey to measure incivility, stress, well-being, and program satisfaction was developed by faculty in one Canadian nursing program. METHOD: A cross-sectional research design was used to pilot the survey. Descriptive statistics including correlations were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Some of the participants reported observing other students making negative verbal remarks (42.9%) to faculty or other students, while 26.8% of participants engaged in indirect negative remarks. Receiving and engaging in incivility were strongly correlated. Fifty percent of the participants were academically stressed, correlating with incivility. Students generally were satisfied with their academic program. CONCLUSIONS: Although incivility is reported as occurring in nursing education, not all students observed, received, or engaged in uncivil behaviors. Receiving incivility was associated with nursing students engaging in uncivil behaviors, highlighting a need for strategies to prevent or mitigate the perpetuation of incivility in undergraduate nursing education.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".