Nursing students' attitudes toward persons who are aged: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze empirical studies from the United States and Canada to gain an understanding on how nursing education affects nursing students' attitudes toward persons who are aged. DESIGN: An integrative literature review was completed using Garrard's (2011) Matrix Method. DATA SOURCES: Articles were identified through the electronic database search engines of CINAHL, Pub Med, and Academic Search Complete. Only peer reviewed research articles from 2009 to 2015 were reviewed. REVIEW METHODS: A review matrix was created to abstract information from 11 studies so that synthesis could occur. Information in the columns of the review matrix was used to compare the studies. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 27 item check list was used to help with reporting the findings. Studies were graded using the American Association of Critical Care Nurses' (AACN) level of evidence. RESULTS: A key finding is student engagement with gerontological content in the classroom or clinical setting results in improving nursing students' attitudes toward persons who are aged. CONCLUSIONS: Several gaps exist in the literature. Further research including longitudinal studies and large scale, multi-site samples would add to the existing knowledge.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".