Nursing Students’ Level of NANDA‐I Proficiency, Knowledge of Clinical Value, and Opportunities for Improved Utilization in Nigeria
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".