Strategies to Support Clinical Nursing Students Requiring Accommodations for Physical and/or Sensory Disability: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Post-secondary institutions are seeing increasing numbers of students requiring accommodation. In the clinical education of nursing students with physical and/or sensory disabilities, it is unclear what strategies are available to promote students’ success. Objective: The objective of this scoping review protocol is to identify the available evidence on strategies that have been implemented to support the clinical education of nursing students who require accommodation for a physical and/or sensory disability in the learning environment. Inclusion Criteria: This scoping review will consider studies that include nursing students with physical and/or sensory disabilities in any regulated nursing designation programs that use clinical placements as a component of nursing education. Peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies; systematic reviews; unpublished dissertations; policy reports from schools of nursing; and text and opinion papers that focus on clinical education of nursing students will be included without limitations on language. Methods: Databases to be searched include Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus. Unpublished studies and gray literature searches will be undertaken in ProQuest Dissertations & Theses and a limited number of relevant nursing websites. No limit on date or region will be applied. Records will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Results will be presented as tables with an accompanying narrative summary. Discussion: As the number of students with physical and/or sensory disabilities in nursing education increases, nursing programs and educators must be aware of how to support these students to complete their education. The clinical learning environment poses unique challenges that need to be explored further. Findings will have implications for policy and programming in 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 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 | 0.100 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.016 |
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".