MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117576536 · doi:10.1002/nop2.70324

Experiences of Nursing Students With NANDA‐I Documentation at a Public University in Nigeria

2025· article· en· W7117576536 on OpenAlexaff
Fatimah Titilayo Mohammed, Isaac Akinkunmi Adedeji, Olufemi OYEDIRAN, Esther Kikelomo Afolabi, Adenike Ayobola Olaogun, Prisca Olabisi Adejumo

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationPublic universityQuality (philosophy)Nursing documentationNurse educationPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The study explored the lived experiences in the utilisation of NANDA International Inc. (NANDA-I) classification in the documentation of nursing care among nursing students in a selected Public University. DESIGN: A qualitative phenomenological approach was adopted, guided by a constructivist paradigm and Benner's Novice to Expert theory. METHODS: Qualitative approach was explored in this study. The second to fifth year nursing students, of similar age groups, and ward postings were included in the study. Those on part-time and first year nursing students were excluded. This was done in one phase with the use of a focus group discussion guide (FGDs). Participants were engaged in FGDs. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical review committee, and informed consent was taken from the participants. Data were collected for 2 months and analysed using themes with independent coding by multiple researchers to ensure inter-coder reliability. The Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research "COREQ" was used. RESULTS: The study involved 20 participants, 15 of whom were female, with a mean age of 23 years (±2.0). Two (2) themes with various subthemes were extracted showing participants' lived experiences. These include (i) personal reflections, subthemes (Universality, Completeness, Uniformity, Decision making, and accurate documentation). (ii) Difficulty domain, subthemes (Comprehending terminologies and concepts, prioritising diagnoses, keeping up with updates and revisions of NANDA-I, and selecting appropriate 'related factor'). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nursing students and nurses increase usage of the NANDA-I diagnoses, improve coordinated patient care, and should result in better quality of care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing OpenSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207