The assessment of clinical competence remains almost universally accepted in the nurse education literature as a laudable pursuit yet there are aspects of it that remain at odds with the higher education of nurses.

Stress, burnout and attrition may not be directly linked. Personality factors at course entry contributed significantly to the prediction of burnout and programme completion, but the relationships were not strong enough to be practically useful.

It is increasingly necessary to have a measuring instrument available in the health field that can be used in clinical practice and research. In order to guarantee the quality of their measurements it is essential that the instruments should be subjected to a process of validation. This process consists in adapting the instrument culturally to the setting where its psychometric characteristics are to be administered and checked, such as: reliability, validity, sensitivity and feasibility. There are measuring instruments from the health field available in other languages but that have not been validated into Spanish. Besides, the methodology for validating an instrument is little understood by the health professionals, which explains the indiscriminate use of instruments that have only been adapted or validated in a way that is not very consistent. The aim of this review is to bring up to date the process of validating an instrument for measuring health, and what it involves, in a practical way. The accessibility of evaluation instruments that have been culturally adapted and validated in different languages will facilitate the comparison of results obtained with the same instrument and the development international studies in different cultures.

Background: Stress in nursing students may be related to attrition from nursing

No abstract

Factor analysis is quite commonly used in nursing research reported in Journal of Advanced Nursing. While some papers are exemplary there is room for improvement in the reporting of all aspects of factor analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated economic vulnerabilities and disrupted the Australian food supply, with potential implications for food insecurity. This study aims to describe the prevalence and socio-demographic associations of food insecurity in Tasmania, Australia, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey (deployed late May to early June 2020) incorporated the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module: Six-Item Short Form, and fifteen demographic and COVID-related income questions. Survey data (n = 1170) were analyzed using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression. The prevalence of food insecurity was 26%. The adjusted odds of food insecurity were higher among respondents with a disability, from a rural area, and living with dependents. Increasing age, a university education, and income above $80,000/year were protective against food insecurity. Food insecurity more than doubled with a loss of household income above 25% (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 2.02; 95% CI: 1.11, 3.71; p = 0.022), and the odds further increased with loss of income above 75% (AOR: 7.14; 95% CI: 2.01, 24.83; p = 0.002). Our results suggest that the prevalence of food insecurity may have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among economically vulnerable households and people who lost income. Policies that support disadvantaged households and ensure adequate employment opportunities are important to support Australians throughout and post the COVID-19 pandemic.

Herd immunity through vaccination is a key measure to control COVID-19 pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy remains a public health threat, which is still common among healthcare workers (HCWs). This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence on HCWs’ attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination and analyse associated factors to provide information for vaccine policy development and practice. We searched PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Science and three Chinese databases for literature published on 12 February 2021. Two researchers screened the literature independently, and 13 studies were included in the systematic review. Vaccine acceptance varied widely and ranged from 27.7% to 77.3%. HCWs had positive attitudes towards future COVID-19 vaccines, while vaccine hesitancy was still common. Demographic variables such as men, older age and physicians were positive predictive factors. Women and nurses had more vaccine hesitancy. Previous influenza vaccination and self-perceived risk were facilitators. Concerns for safety, efficacy and effectiveness and distrust of the government were barriers. Influences of direct (COVID-19) patient care towards vaccination intention were less conclusive. Tailored communication strategies were needed to increase the uptake rate of COVID-19 vaccines among HCWs. More importantly, more data and information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines should be provided with transparency.