PurposeThis study aimed to investigate Jordanian university students' interaction, Internet self-efficacy, self-regulation and satisfaction regarding online education during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachA correlational cross-sectional design was utilized using convenience sampling to include 702 undergraduate students from Jordanian universities using an online self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, T-tests, one-way ANOVA and multiple regression analyses were used to analyze the data.FindingsThe mean score of students' satisfaction was low (m = 45.14, SD = 25.62). Regarding student's interaction, learner-instructor interaction had the highest total mean score (m = 58.53, SD = 24.51), followed by learner-learner interaction (m = 47.50, SD = 22.64). Learner-content interaction had the lowest total mean score (m = 45.80, SD = 24.60). Significant differences in students' satisfaction were identified according to the level of education, university type and marital status. Significant predictors of students' satisfaction with online education were self-regulated learning, Internet self-efficacy, learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction and the number of e-learning theoretical courses.Originality/valueOnline education is not well-established in developing countries. This study contributed to the limited knowledge of university students’ preparedness and satisfaction with online education during the early stage of COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims and objectives To report the findings from interviews conducted as part of a wider study on interventions to support dignified care in older people in acute hospital care. The data in this study present the interview data. Background Dignity is a complex concept. Despite a plethora of recommendations on how to achieve dignified care, it remains unclear how to attain this in practice and what the priorities of patients and staff are in relation to dignity. Design A purposive sample of older patients and staff took part in semi‐structured interviews and gave their insight on the meaning of dignity and examples of what sustains and breaches a patient's dignity in acute hospital care. Method Thirteen patients and 38 healthcare professionals in a single metropolitan hospital in the UK interviewed. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis. Results The meaning of dignity was broadly agreed on by patients and staff. Three broad themes were identified: the meaning of dignity, staffing level and its impact on dignity, and organisational culture and dignity. Registered staff of all healthcare discipline and student nurses report very little training on dignity or care of the older person. Conclusion There remain inconsistencies in the application of dignified care. Staff behaviour, a lack of training and the organisational processes continue to result in breaches to dignity of older people. Clinical nurses have a major role in ensuring dignified care for older people in hospital. Relevance to clinical practice There needs to be systematic dignity‐related training with regular refreshers. This education coupled with measures to change the cultural attitudes in an organisation towards older peoples’ care should result in long‐term improvements in the level of dignified care. Hospital managers have an important role in changing system to ensure that staff deliver the levels of care they aspire to.

We have developed a simple format for a dignity survey and observations. Overall, most patients reported electronically that they received dignified care in hospital. However, observations identified a high percentage of interactions categorised as neutral/basic care, which, while not actively diminishing dignity, will not enhance dignity. There is an opportunity to make these interactions more positive.

No abstract