↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac health knowledge and misconceptions among nursing students: implications for nursing curriculum design

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cardiac health knowledge and misconceptions among nursing students: implications for nursing curriculum design
Published in
BMC Nursing, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12912-017-0241-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Ka Yee Chow, Yuen Yee Chan, Sin Kuen Ho, Ka Chun Ng

Abstract

Cardiac misconceptions are common among healthcare professionals. The development of professional knowledge is considered an essential component of nursing education. Nurses, regardless of their grade, skills, and experience, should be updated with information so as to be able to rectify their misconceptions, as these could affect patient health outcomes. As the literature evaluating the cardiac knowledge and misconceptions of nursing students is sparse, a study of the subject seems warranted. A cross-sectional sample survey was used to study the cardiac knowledge and cardiac misconceptions of nursing students in Hong Kong. The study sample included 385 senior nursing students from three universities. Their level of knowledge of cardiac disease was assessed using the modified Coronary Heart Disease Knowledge Test. The York Cardiac Beliefs Questionnaire (YCBQv1) was used to examine cardiac misconceptions. The scores for the nursing students' level of knowledge were diverse. Their mean score in the Cardiac Knowledge Test was 12.27 out of 18 (SD 2.38), with a range of 2-17. For cardiac misconceptions, their mean score in the YCBQv1 was 6.98 out of 20 (SD 2.84), with a range of 0-14. A negative correlation, r = -0.33 was found among students with more knowledge and fewer misconceptions. (p < 0.001). The Chi-square tests found some associations between the students' experiences of caring for cardiac patients and misconceptions about stress and physiology. The results of our analyses indicate a diversity in levels of knowledge among the nursing students. Students with higher scores in cardiac knowledge did not necessarily have fewer misconceptions. There were associations between the students' misbeliefs and their caregiving experiences with cardiac patients. This study presents a framework for designing the contents of cardiac nursing programmes and is a starting point for promoting research on misconceptions held by undergraduate nursing students. A new paradigm of teaching should include inputs from both perspectives to help students to make critical use of theoretical knowledge to rectify their misconceptions and pursue excellence in the working world.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Lecturer 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 29 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 42%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,361,016
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#398
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,080
of 316,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.