Skip to main content

Table 5 Multi-variate relationship between staff nurses’ program exposure and program satisfaction

From: Assessing the impact of academic-practice partnerships on nursing staff

 

Satisfaction with Program Components (Odds Ratios) (1):

Personal Reward

Prof Recognition

Instructor Clinical Expertise

Instructor Teaching Ability

Instructor Involvement

Info Provided

Time Available

Support Received

Preceptor -Student Ratio

Instructor -Student Ratio

Aptitude of Students

Exposure:

           

Informed about VANA program (2):

Well informed

4.21***

4.03***

4.76***

4.94***

2.81**

n/a

3.68***

2.85**

3.07**

2.74**

2.62

Somewhat informed

1.81°

2.12*

3.30***

2.50*

2.02*

n/a

2.89**

2.38*

2.98**

2.38*

1.74

Frequency of interaction with students (3):

High frequency

4.65***

3.03***

3.52***

3.32***

2.35**

5.27***

4.26***

2.27*

1.99*

1.95*

2.72**

Medium frequency

2.85**

2.53**

3.65**

4.11**

2.41*

2.17°

3.76***

3.35**

2.00

2.67*

4.36***

Noticed an increase in EBP activities on unit (4)

Moderate to substantial

1.88*

1.84*

3.63***

3.59***

2.31**

2.24**

1.31

2.19**

1.92*

1.67°

2.04*

Precepts students (5)

Yes

2.43***

1.44

2.51**

2.48**

2.33**

3.06***

2.05*

2.12*

3.62***

2.01*

1.75°

  1. (1) The experiences were specified as:
  2. • Personal reward from working with students
  3. • Professional recognition you received for working with students
  4. • Clinical expertise of instructors
  5. • Teaching ability of instructors
  6. • Instructor involvement in teaching students while on the unit
  7. • Information provided to you about students’ learning objectives
  8. • Amount of time available for you to work with students
  9. • Support you received from supervisors/colleagues to work with students
  10. • Preceptor-to-student ratio
  11. • Instructor-to-student ratio
  12. • Aptitude of students
  13. (2) Extent to which staff nurse felt informed about the VANA program: well informed, somewhat informed, not very informed. Not very informed is the omitted variable
  14. (3) Interacted with nursing students over the past year when present during shift: most or all of the time (defined as high frequency), about half of the time (medium frequency), or a little or none of the time (low frequency). Low frequency of interaction with students is the omitted variable
  15. (4) Noticed a moderate or substantial increase in activities designed to foster the use of evidence-based practice on unit since the start of VANA (dichotomous variable)
  16. (5) Currently performs role of preceptor (dichotomous variable) nn
  17. ° p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001