Undergraduate nursing students' perspectives on and experiences with clinical practice preparedness: a descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate curricula are designed to prepare nursing students for CP courses so that they can demonstrate their knowledge and skills in supportive and supervised learning environments while students. This is particularly important today, given the ever-increasing knowledge in health sciences and the evolving complexity of healthcare environments. However, anecdotal evidence indicates nursing students feel unprepared for CP, and the literature surrounding this phenomenon remains limited. This study, guided by self-efficacy theory, aimed to explore and describe undergraduate nursing students' (UNS) perspectives on and experiences with clinical practice (CP) preparedness (CPP). Following institutional ethical approval, twenty UNS enrolled in years three and four of the undergraduate nursing program participated in semi-structured, video-recorded virtual interviews. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze narrative data. The findings described the participants' shared views on CPP. Three themes (or types) of preparedness were found: psychological, cognitive, and physical. Two additional themes were found: CP environment and CP sources (including relationships, preclinical learning, and lived experiences). The findings of this study offer novel insight into UNS' views on CPP and contribute to the limited literature on this phenomenon. These insights may help nurse educators facilitate UNS' sense of preparedness and, in turn, success in their clinical practice courses by ensuring adequate support and structure. This guidance will allow the student to focus on attaining course objectives and entry-level competencies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".