ArticleBMC medical education2025
Explaining reasons for cheating in exams among undergraduate nursing students: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCheating in exams is a common problem in many educational settings. This issue is critical in the medical field because it can have a long-term impact on the health of society. Therefore, this study aims to explore the reasons why undergraduate nursing students cheat in exams.
methodsThis qualitative content analysis study was conducted in 2024, involving 15 participants, comprising six undergraduate nursing students, five faculty members, a dean of the nursing college, a vice-chancellor of educational affairs, an expert in educational affairs, and an in-charge for exam administration, who were purposefully selected. Individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect information. Then, the data was analyzed using Elo and Kyngas' inductive content analysis approach with the help of MAXQDA 2020 software. Also, Elo et al.'s checklist was used to check the trustworthiness of the data.
resultsThe number of extracted final codes was 96, which were divided into two main themes and four categories, including personal (intrapersonal and interpersonal) and organizational factors (weakness in educational policies and implementation problems).
conclusionThese findings can significantly influence the development of future educational policies and practices. Therefore, educational policymakers should pay special attention to this issue and take adequate measures to address the root causes of exam cheating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.