The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A qualitative study of nursing student experiences of clinical practice
Open accessAbstract
Background: Nursing student's experiences of their clinical practice provide greater insight to develop an effective clinical teaching strategy in nursing education. The main objective of this study was to investigate student nurses' experience about their clinical practice. Methods: Focus groups were used to obtain students' opinion and experiences about their clinical practice. 90 baccalaureate nursing students at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery) were selected randomly from two hundred students and were arranged in 9 groups of ten students. To analyze the data the method used to code and categories focus group data were adapted from approaches to qualitative data analysis. Results: Four themes emerged from the focus group data. From the students' point of view," initial clinical anxiety", "theory-practice gap"," clinical supervision", professional role", were considered as important factors in clinical experience. Conclusion: The result of this study showed that nursing students were not satisfied with the clinical component of their education. They experienced anxiety as a result of feeling incompetent and lack of professional nursing skills and knowledge to take care of various patients in the clinical setting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Cited by 24,217
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 · Cited by 20,772
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
Ellis, D. (1990) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/0268-4012(90)90041-p · Cited by 17,943
Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research
Billson, J. M. (1989) · Human Biology · Cited by 8,560
Nursing Research: Principles and Methods
McFarland, G. K., Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1987) · The American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.2307/3425916 · Cited by 6,942
(1990) · Cited by 3,957
Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative
Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2007) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 3,209
Gardner, D. M., & Denzin, N. K. (1978) · Cited by 2,073
Developing Focus Group Research
Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (1999) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849208857 · Cited by 1,599
Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
(2020) · Australian journal of advanced nursing · doi:10.37464/2020 · Cited by 1,596
Cited by
The Challenges of Nursing Students in the Clinical Learning Environment: A Qualitative Study
Jamshidi, N., Molazem, Z., Sharif, F., Torabizadeh, C., & Najafi Kalyani, M. (2016) · The Scientific World Journal · doi:10.1155/2016/1846178 · Cited by 423
Self-citationInterventional Strategies to Decrease Nursing Student Anxiety in the Clinical Learning Environment
Moscaritolo, L. M. (2009) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20090101-08 · Cited by 172
Assessment of critical thinking: A Delphi study
Paul, S. A. (2014) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2014.03.008 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharif, F., & Masoumi, S.
- Venue
- BMC Nursing
- Published
- 2005-11-09
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-6
- ISSN
- 1472-6955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114923063
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A qualitative study of nursing student experiences of clinical practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1472-6955-4-6
- The paper
- Sharif, F., & Masoumi, S. (2005). A qualitative study of nursing student experiences of clinical practice. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6955-4-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
