RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Caring behaviour is critical for nursing quality, and the clinical internship environment is a crucial setting for preparing nursing students for caring behaviours. Evidence about how to develop nursing students' caring behaviour in the clinical environment is still emerging. However, the mechanism between the clinical internship environment and caring behaviour remains unclear, especially the mediating role of moral sensitivity and the moderating effect of self-efficacy. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the mediating effect of moral sensitivity and the moderating function of self-efficacy on the association between the clinical internship environment and caring behaviours. RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional design used acceptable validity scales. The hypothesised moderated mediation model was tested in the SPSS PROCESS macro. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: This survey collected data from 504 nursing students in an internship at a teaching hospital in Changsha, China. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was pre-approved by the ethics committee of the medical school (No. E2022210). Informed consent was obtained from all students. RESULTS: The clinical internship environment (B = 0.450, 95% CI = [0.371, 0.530]) and moral sensitivity (B = 1.352, 95% CI = [1.090, 1.615]) had positive direct effects on nursing students' caring behaviours. Clinical internship environment also indirectly influenced students' caring behaviours via moral sensitivity (B = 0.161, 95% CI = [0.115, 0.206]). In addition, self-efficacy played a moderating role between the clinical internship environment and caring behaviours (B = 0.019, 95% CI = [0.007, 0.031]), as well as the relationship between the clinical internship environment and moral sensitivity (B = 0.006, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.010]). CONCLUSION: Moral sensitivity mediates the effect of the clinical internship environment on caring behaviour, and self-efficacy strengthens both direct and indirect effects. This study emphasises the importance of self-efficacy in developing moral sensitivity and caring behaviours in nursing students.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Early detection and timely prophylaxis can retard the progression of osteoporosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of peripheral Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) test for osteoporosis screening. We examined peripheral bone mineral density (BMD) using AKDX-09 W-I DXA densitometer. Firstly, we acquired BMD data from manufacturer-supplied density-gradient phantoms and 30 volunteers to investigate its accuracy and precision, then we measured BMD for 150 volunteers using both AKDX (left forearm) and Hologic Discovery Wi (left forearm, left hip and L1 - L4 vertebrae) simultaneously. Correlation relationship of BMD results acquired from two instruments was assessed by simple linear regression analysis, the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Areas Under the Curves (AUCs) were evaluated for the diagnostic value of left forearm BMD measured by AKDX in detecting osteoporosis. RESULTS: In vitro precision errors of AKDX BMD were 0.40, 0.20, 0.19%, respectively, on low-, medium-, and high-density phantom; in vivo precision was 1.65%. Positive correlation was observed between BMD measured by AKDX and Hologic at the forearm (r = 0.670), L1-L4 (r = 0.430, femoral neck (r = 0.449), and total hip (r = 0.559). With Hologic measured T-score as the gold standard, the sensitivity of AKDX T-score < - 1 for identifying suboptimal bone health was 63.0 and 76.1%, respectively, at the distal one-third radius and at any site, and the specificity was 73.9 and 90.0%, respectively; the AUCs were 0.708 and 0.879. The sensitivity of AKDX T-score ≤ - 2.5 for identifying osteoporosis at the distal one-third radius and at any site was 76.9 and70.4%, respectively, and the specificity was 80.4 and 78.0%, respectively; the AUCs were 0.823 and 0.778. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral DXA appears to be a reliable tool for prescreening for osteoporosis.
