Reasons for academic cheating in a cohort of nursing students in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.

This cross-sectional study investigated the reasons behind academic cheating in a cohort of nursing students in Saudi Arabia. The study involved 482 nursing students from two government universities in Riyadh. We used a newly developed self-reported questionnaire called the Reasons for Cheating Scale (RCS) to collect data. The highest-scoring reasons for academic cheating in the study population included the desire to obtain high grades, encouragement from friends to cheat, and the perception that exams were too difficult. Male students scored significantly higher than female students for reasons such as not understanding the course material, unclear test questions and instructions, pressure from families to excel, difficulty of the course material, and ignorance of effective study methods (P < 0.05). Age also had a role, as students aged 15-20 years had significantly higher scores for the item "Exams are too hard", whereas those aged ≥25 years had higher scores for "Difficulty of the course material" (P < 0.05). Additionally, students in the preparatory year had significantly higher scores than those in other years for reasons such as difficult exams, unclear test questions and instructions, fear of failing, difficulty of the course material, and the desire to please their families (P < 0.05). Overall, the desire to obtain high grades emerged as the main reason for academic cheating in our cohort of nursing students in Saudi Arabia. The findings suggest that sociodemographic characteristics, including sex, age, and academic year, should be considered when addressing the issue of cheating among nursing students.

Development and validation of a questionnaire about reasons for academic cheating by nursing students: A cross-sectional study.

Cheating behavior is spreading among nursing students worldwide, necessitating the development of a validated questionnaire evaluating the reasons for such behavior. Nursing students (N = 482) from 2 universities in Saudi Arabia participated in this observational study. A survey containing items on socio-demographics and the 33-item Reasons for Cheating Scale (RCS) was completed by the respondents. The RCS had a 1-factor structure; the model fit indices were similar between the 1-, 2-, and 3-factor models, but the inter-factor correlations were too high for the 2- and 3-factor models. The measures of the quality of the factor score estimates were as follows: factor determinacy index, 0.987; expected a posteriori marginal reliability, 0.974; sensitivity ratio, 6.178; and expected percentage of true differences, 97.3%. The measures of the closeness to unidimensionality for the overall RCS were as follows: unidimensional congruence, 0.957; explained common variance, 0.875; and mean item residual absolute loading, 0.223. The intraclass correlation coefficient and McDonald's omega were 0.96 (CI: 0.93-0.98) and 0.962 (95% CI: 0.958-0.967), respectively. The severity score, infit, and outfit ranged from -0.847 to -2.015, 0.813 to 1.742, and 0.837 to 1.661, respectively. For all RCS items, the thresholds ranked τi1 < τi2 < τi3 < τi4 and showed invariance between the sexes. The RCS showed robust psychometric validity for both classical and item response theory parameters. It also had excellent test-retest reliability, internal consistency, item discrimination, factorial validity, measurement invariance, and ordered threshold level for the responses. Therefore, the RCS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing cheating behavior among nursing students.

Correction: Nursing Students' Perspectives on Academic Dishonesty During Examinations and Assignments: A Cross-Sectional Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52418.].

Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. AIM: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). METHOD: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. CONCLUSION: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

Nursing Students' Perspectives on Academic Dishonesty During Examinations and Assignments: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background and objective Academic dishonesty or misconduct among nursing students is a crucial concern within educational institutions. In nursing education, academic dishonesty hinders the development of knowledge and skills among students, thereby jeopardizing both patient safety and the effectiveness of clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and forms of academic dishonesty among nursing students in Saudi Arabia. Methodology The participants comprised 482 nursing students from two governmental universities in Saudi Arabia. A newly developed self-reported questionnaire was used to collect data on academic dishonesty, comprising two distinct sections: a 16-item Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire during examinations and an 11-item Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire related to assignments. Results A one-sample binomial test indicates a significant proportion of students engaging in at least one form of academic dishonesty (n = 452, 93.8%; χ²(1) = 19.176; P < 0.001). Notably, 432 (89.9%) students reported dishonesty in examinations and 385 (79.9%) in assignments. Multiple-response analysis of 7,712 responses from 482 students using the 16-item Examination Dishonesty Questionnaire showed that the majority of the students (n = 4,010, 52%) were cheating on the examination. Similarly, of the 5,302 total responses from the 11-item Assignment Dishonesty Questionnaire, 2,773 (52.3%) responses revealed engagement in academic dishonesty during the assignment. The most prevalent and statistically significant form of academic dishonesty during examinations was studying previous examination questions without the knowledge of the teacher (n = 370, 76.5%), followed by providing and collecting previous examination question papers (n = 316, 65.6%) and (n = 304, 63.1%), respectively. Similarly, the common and significant form of academic dishonesty during the completion of assignments included unfair collaboration (n = 331, 68.7%), allowing a friend to copy assignments (n = 304, 63.1%), and copying from the internet (n = 286, 59.3%) without citing the source (P < 0.001). Conclusions Our study identified a significant prevalence of academic dishonesty among Saudi nursing students, a particularly noteworthy concern within the context of a respected governmental educational institution. This emphasizes the need for implementing rigorous preventive measures to curb academic dishonesty. Based on the findings of our study, recommended interventions include providing educational workshops or similar initiatives to educate students on the consequences of cheating and plagiarism, using diverse questions to assess knowledge and skills during theory examinations and assignments, enforcing stringent penalties for copying and cheating, establishing a code of ethics, and proactively promoting ethical practices among nursing students by leveraging the influence of Islamic religious principles to address this issue.

Monkeypox: An Unfamiliar Virus-Clinical and Epidemiological Characteristics, Diagnosis, and Treatment with Special Emphasis on Oral Health.

With the recent increased prevalence of human outbreaks, monkeypox has been recognized for decades as an infectious disease with substantial pandemic potential. The majority of cases of this virus have been observed in the European region (11,865), with few cases in the Western Pacific (54). Various governing health agencies are striving to restrain the fatal monkeypox virus (MPXV). Health practitioners around the world are learning about the many clinical manifestations of this infection, and its potential therapies. Despite the plethora of new evidence and rising cases, the essential questions remain unsolved. Thus, in this review, we have modernized the outlook for monkeypox, which will be helpful for various medical practitioners. In the light of continuing outbreaks around the world, we have also presented our assessment of the readiness of India against this outbreak, with a special focus on its effects on oral health.

Asylum seekers' and refugees' experiences of accessing health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales. DESIGN & SETTING: Participatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees. METHOD: Eight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57). RESULTS: Specialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services' difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier. CONCLUSION: The main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.