Nursing Students’ Level of NANDA‐I Proficiency, Knowledge of Clinical Value, and Opportunities for Improved Utilization in Nigeria
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 This study investigated the level of NANDA‐I proficiency, knowledge of clinical value, and opportunities for improved utilization. Methods Using the qualitative approach, data were collected from 20 participants. This was done in one phase with the use of a focus group discussion guide. Participants were engaged in focus group discussions. Data were collected for 2 months and analyzed using themes. Results Two themes with various subthemes were extracted, showing participants’ level of proficiency and perception of the value, including the opportunities for using NANDA‐I. These include: i. Level of proficiency subthemes (Varying rating, High proficiency, Low proficiency and Academic level) and ii. Value and opportunities of NANDA‐I, and subthemes (Uniformity, Continuity of care, Patient‐centered care, Communication efficiency, and Professional advancement). Conclusion The findings show nursing students had varying proficiency levels with NANDA‐I utilization, highlighting its benefits and opportunities. It is suggested that nursing students’ level of proficiency can be enhanced through clinical exposure and 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.
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 it