A Comparative Analysis of Nursing Students' Dress Code: Insights Beyond the Scrubs from Iran, Duke University, Griffith University, and the University of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Nursing students' attire and appearance can significantly influence their relationships with patients.This study aimed to compare the dress codes of nursing students at four universities: Iran, Duke University, Griffith University, and British Columbia University.Methods This comparative descriptive study was conducted in 2025, employing Bereday's four-stage model (description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison).Data were collected by reviewing official professional dress code guidelines in Iran and those published on the websites of nursing faculties at Duke University (USA), Griffith University (Australia), and the University of British Columbia (Canada).Keywords such as "professional attire," "professional appearance," "uniform policy," "dress code," and "nursing students" were used for data retrieval.The analysis focused on five key areas: objectives, clothing and professional appearance, personal hygiene and grooming requirements, conduct standards, and monitoring and enforcement. ResultsThe updated dress code guideline in Iran represents an advancement over the previous version.However, there remains potential for further refinement by incorporating practical and safety aspects from the guidelines of Duke University and the University of British Columbia.While the Iranian guidelines emphasize comprehensive and formal attire, Western universities have largely adopted scrubs or more comfortable clothing as the standard uniform for nursing students.Notably, Duke University's dress code is exceptionally comprehensive, placing significant emphasis on the ethical, professional, communicative, and behavioral dimensions of students.Furthermore, Western universities employ a more direct, expeditious, and decisive approach with serious consequences to address violations. ConclusionThe nursing student dress code in Iran exhibits less comprehensiveness compared to those implemented at Western universities.To strengthen the Iranian guidelines, several key areas warrant consideration: emphasizing practical and safety considerations, providing more detailed and precise specifications for attire, integrating evidencebased infection control and patient safety protocols, and addressing the appropriate use of social media and smartphones within clinical settings.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".