The Role of Socioeconomic Background in Career Choice and Perceptions of the Graduate Nursing Residency Program Among Nursing Students in Hungary

1. Introduction

Healthcare systems face significant human resource challenges. One of the most serious of these is the shortage of nursing staff [1]. Educating a new generation of nurses, supporting their retention in the profession, and facilitating the professional integration of young professionals have therefore become tasks of paramount importance [2]. According to the international literature, retaining the nursing workforce and ensuring the successful professional integration of new graduates are among the most significant human resource challenges in healthcare today [2,3]. Among newly graduated nurses, turnover rate exceeds 33% two years after graduation, which leads to staff shortages in care teams and has a negative impact on the quality of care [4,5].

According to the international literature, choosing a career in nursing is a complex process in which altruistic motivations, job security, career opportunities, and characteristics of one’s social and family background all play a role [6,7]. According to recent research, supportive attitudes continue to play a decisive role in career choices, and, in addition, job security, opportunities for professional development, and social recognition also emerge as significant motivating factors [8,9,10]. Numerous studies have shown that parents’ educational attainment, the family’s socioeconomic status, the type of community in which these families live, and family members’ educational background can have a significant impact on the choice of higher education studies and the development of professional identity [11,12]. Social background and the socialization environment can play a significant role in shaping educational and professional trajectories. Family resources, the local community, school experiences, and past socialization patterns can equally influence individuals’ professional aspirations, career choices and future career plans [13,14]. The choice of a career in healthcare should therefore not be viewed solely as the result of individual preferences, but also as a process that is shaped by one’s social environment and the experiences gained throughout one’s life [15].

However, students enrolled in nursing programs cannot be regarded as a homogeneous group. Differences in family background, community environments, prior educational experiences, and socialization patterns can lead to the formation of distinct student groups [12]. These differences may be reflected not only in the timing and motivations behind career choices but also in attitudes towards professional development, career building, and programs designed to support those starting their careers [6,7,16]. In recent years, the role of graduate nurses has gained greater recognition worldwide. As healthcare becomes more complex, interprofessional collaboration strengthens, and the demand for higher levels of clinical competence increases, there is a growing emphasis on supporting the professional development of graduate nurses [17]. The development and strengthening of professional identity is particularly important during the transition from higher education to the workforce, as it can significantly influence career retention and professional commitment [12,16].

The transition from nursing student to clinical practice is a complex, multifaceted process in which new nurses often face significant challenges adapting to their new role [4]. A sense of low competence, emotional strain, and a need for support often lead to “transition shock,” which can have long-term effects on the future careers of new nurses. This results in reduced job satisfaction, low retention rates, and higher rates of neglecting nursing duties [4]. To address these challenges, many countries have introduced residency or transitional professional programs designed to ease the transition from higher education to the workforce and to reduce the risk of dropping out [18,19]. The nursing residency program is a structured transitional program designed to develop the competencies of newly graduated nurses and to facilitate their transition into professional practice through mentoring, support, and hands-on experience [4,20]. Residency programs typically last one or two years, although there are also shorter and longer options [5]. The programs generally include several key components: a) a preceptor-guided orientation period, during which new nurses are introduced to the patient care unit under the guidance of an experienced nurse; b) a formal mentoring system that provides both professional and emotional support; c) structured competency development to acquire basic and specialty-specific competencies; d) regular reflective seminars where new graduates can share their experiences; and e) a clinical rotation system across various patient care units [5,21].

According to research on residency programs, such initiatives can significantly contribute to the development of professional competencies, increased self-confidence, stronger organizational integration, and longer-term retention in the profession [18,19,22,23]. Systematic reviews clearly show positive effects: recent graduates participating in the program demonstrate higher levels of general competence, greater self-confidence, higher job satisfaction, lower stress levels, a lower intention to leave, and a higher retention rate [4,5]. Participation in one-year residency programs significantly reduces retention rates and increases retention rates, the latter of which could reach as high as 87% at the end of the first year in some programs [21,24]. Professional support for entry-level nurses is particularly important given that, among recent graduates, the intention to leave the profession is a significant problem even at the international level [3,23].

At the same time, little information is available on how nursing students from different social backgrounds view these programs, or on the differences in their motivations for choosing this career path and their expectations regarding professional advancement. The aim of this study is to explore what kind of student groups can be distinguished based on the social and socialization characteristics of BSc nursing students in Hungary, to discover how these groups relate to patterns of career choice in nursing, as well as to describe their perceptions of the social prestige of the graduate nursing profession, and their attitudes towards the Graduate Nursing Residency Program (GNRP). The current research also sought to determine whether there are differences among the various student groups in their awareness of the GNRP, as well as in their assessment of the extent to which the program can contribute to professional development and to the labor market integration of entry-level nurses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Type of Research and Data Collection

The study was conducted as a quantitative, cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire. The aim of the data collection was the following: a) to identify the social, educational, and socialization backgrounds of BSc nursing students, b) to characterize the career choice patterns associated with these types, and c) to examine how backgrounds relate to awareness of and perceptions regarding the resident graduate nursing program.

Data collection (01.09.2025 – 01.03.2026) was conducted online. The survey was administered to students enrolled in BSc nursing programs at all higher education institutions in Hungary. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, and prior to completing the questionnaire, respondents were informed about the purpose of the research and the methods of data processing.

The final sample included respondents who provided valid responses to the background and analytical variables relevant to the study. We excluded eight individuals from the analysis who did not answer these questions, resulting in a final sample size of 971.

2.2. Variables Examined

The central explanatory variable of the study was the student background types identified using TwoStep cluster analysis. The purpose of clustering was to identify meaningful groups based on students’ social, educational, and socialization characteristics, which are suitable for comparative analysis of career choice patterns and evaluation of the GNRP.

To examine career choice patterns, the following features were used: the life stage at which the nursing profession was chosen, factors influencing career choice, parental support, and perceptions of the social prestige of the graduate nurse profession. Among others, motivations for career choice included job security, social recognition, earning potential, career opportunities, influence from family or acquaintances, the presence of healthcare workers among family or friends, and the motivation to help people.

Regarding the GNRP, the following were examined: prior awareness of the program, perceptions of its role in professional development, the potential impact on professional prestige, assessment of its innovativeness, and opinions on its organizational acceptance and professional support. In addition, perceptions of the program’s specific structural elements were analyzed separately, including the three-month rotation system, the two-year training period, professional and spiritual mentoring, theoretical continuing education, and the opportunity to get to know a wider circle of hospital staff.

2.3. Statistical Methods

Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. During descriptive statistical analyses, we calculated frequency distributions, percentages, means, and standard deviations.

TwoStep cluster analysis was used to identify student background types. This method allows for the joint handling of categorical and ordinal variables, as well as the automatic identification of distinct groups in large samples. The optimal number of clusters was determined by considering Schwarz’s Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and cluster quality indices.

The relationship between student background types and career choice patterns was analyzed, and perceptions of occupational prestige were also examined using cross-tabulation analyses. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to test for associations, and Cramer’s V was calculated to estimate the strength of the relationship. Prior awareness of the GNRP was also examined by student background type using cross-tabulation analysis.

Differences in the overall evaluation of the GNRP were examined across clusters using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). During the ANOVA analyses, evaluations of the program’s professional usefulness, prestige-enhancing effect, innovativeness, organizational acceptance, and professional support were compared across the four student background types. The Tukey test was used for post hoc comparisons.

Multivariate analysis of variance was employed to collectively examine the specific structural elements of the program. The dependent variables in the MANOVA included the rotation system, the two-year training period, professional mentoring, spiritual mentoring, theoretical continuing education, and the assessment of broader familiarity with hospital staff, while student background types were included as independent variables. Since conditions regarding the homogeneity of covariance matrices can be sensitive in large samples, we used the more robust Pillai’s Trace statistic as a basis for interpreting multivariate effects.

In the analyses, the level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. When interpreting the results, in addition to the significance level, attention was paid to effect sizes, particularly based on Cramer’s V and the partial eta-squared measures.

The research was approved by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Health Sciences Council (case identification number: BM/23058-3/2024). After completing an informed consent form, participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Prior to data collection, participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the methods for handling data, and the conditions for participation in the study. Throughout the research, the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Study Sample

The final analysis sample consisted of 971 nursing students enrolled in BSc programs. Of the respondents, 85.68% were female, and 14.32% were male. The largest age group consisted of students aged 18–24 (36.35%), while the 25–34 (22.76%) and 45–54 (22.04%) age groups were also represented in significant proportions.

73.43% of the students were enrolled in part-time programs, while 68.80% were already working in the nursing field at the time of completing the questionnaire. The majority of respondents lived in urban areas, and secondary education was the most common level of education among their parents. Among the secondary schools from which students obtained their diplomas, high schools accounted for the largest proportion (46.86%); however, the proportion of students coming from secondary-level health care training programs was also significant.

Table 1 presents the detailed sociodemographic and educational characteristics of the study sample.

3.2. Profile of Student Background Types

To explore students’ social and educational backgrounds, a TwoStep cluster analysis was conducted. As part of the clustering process, the following were included in the analysis: the educational attainment of the father and mother; participation in religious education in high school; the type of community where participants’ elementary schools were located; the type of current residence; and the type of high school.

As a result of the TwoStep cluster analysis, four distinct student background types emerged.

Table 2. Profiles of student background types identified by the TwoStep cluster analysis.

Variable	Category	1 - Students from families with a university degree	2 - Students with a rural healthcare orientation	3 - Urban middle-class students	4 - Students with an urban mobility background
Father’s education	Primary or less	0	17.96	5.11	4.85
	Vocational school	6.55	66.57	42.13	48.06
	Vocational secondary school	17.26	14.36	41.28	31.55
	University degree	76.19	1.1	11.49	15.53
Mother’s education	Primary or less	0.6	20.44	8.51	9.71
	Vocational school	1.79	44.75	23.4	32.04
	Vocational secondary school	13.69	29.83	60.43	40.29
	University degree	83.93	4.97	7.66	17.96
Place of residence	Village	43.45	14.64	51.91	15.53
	County seat	14.29	9.94	30.21	1.46
	Town	16.67	30.39	11.06	80.58
	Capital city	25.6	45.03	6.81	2.43
Residence during primary school	Village	57.14	4.97	82.55	0
	Town	26.19	34.53	8.94	97.09
	County seat	16.67	60.5	8.51	2.91
	Capital city	88.69	35.91	36.17	44.17
Type of secondary school	Grammar school	7.14	48.34	42.98	33.01
	Health vocational secondary school	4.17	15.75	20.85	22.82
Higher education participation	No	44.05	48.9	84.26	98.06
	Yes	55.95	51.1	15.74	1.94

* The figure shows the percentage distributions within each cluster. The color scale indicates the proportion of each category within the cluster: red indicates a lower proportion, gray a moderate proportion, and blue a higher proportion.

Table 2. Profiles of student background types identified by the TwoStep cluster analysis.

Variable	Category	1 - Students from families with a university degree	2 - Students with a rural healthcare orientation	3 - Urban middle-class students	4 - Students with an urban mobility background
Father’s education	Primary or less	0	17.96	5.11	4.85
	Vocational school	6.55	66.57	42.13	48.06
	Vocational secondary school	17.26	14.36	41.28	31.55
	University degree	76.19	1.1	11.49	15.53
Mother’s education	Primary or less	0.6	20.44	8.51	9.71
	Vocational school	1.79	44.75	23.4	32.04
	Vocational secondary school	13.69	29.83	60.43	40.29
	University degree	83.93	4.97	7.66	17.96
Place of residence	Village	43.45	14.64	51.91	15.53
	County seat	14.29	9.94	30.21	1.46
	Town	16.67	30.39	11.06	80.58
	Capital city	25.6	45.03	6.81	2.43
Residence during primary school	Village	57.14	4.97	82.55	0
	Town	26.19	34.53	8.94	97.09
	County seat	16.67	60.5	8.51	2.91
	Capital city	88.69	35.91	36.17	44.17
Type of secondary school	Grammar school	7.14	48.34	42.98	33.01
	Health vocational secondary school	4.17	15.75	20.85	22.82
Higher education participation	No	44.05	48.9	84.26	98.06
	Yes	55.95	51.1	15.74	1.94

* The figure shows the percentage distributions within each cluster. The color scale indicates the proportion of each category within the cluster: red indicates a lower proportion, gray a moderate proportion, and blue a higher proportion.

The first cluster (n = 168; 17.30%) can be identified as a group characterized by high cultural resources and a strong high school background. The family background of the cluster members is characterized by high parental education levels: 76.19% of fathers and 83.93% of mothers hold a college degree. A significant proportion of the students live in Budapest (43.45%), and more than half (57.14%) attended elementary school in Budapest or in a county seat. They completed their secondary education predominantly at high schools (88.69%), and more than half of the cluster members (55.95%) received religious instruction.

The second cluster (n = 362; 37.28%) consists primarily of healthcare-oriented students living in rural areas. The group is characterized by lower parental educational attainment: 84.53% of fathers and 65.19% of mothers have at most a vocational or technical school qualification. 45.03% of the students live in villages or small towns, while 60.50% completed their elementary school education in such settlements. Their high school background is primarily linked to healthcare vocational training (48.34%). The proportion of those participating in religious education is 51.10%.

The third cluster (n = 235; 24.20%) can be described as a group of students with ties to the capital or county seats and parents with a secondary education level. Among parents, secondary education is the most common: among fathers, the proportions with vocational or technical school qualifications (42.13%) and secondary school education (41.28%) are nearly identical, whereas among mothers, secondary school education is the most common (60.43%). The majority of cluster members live in Budapest (51.91%) or in a county seat (30.21%), and 82.55% attended elementary school in Budapest or a county seat. Regarding high school backgrounds, healthcare secondary school is the most common category (42.98%), while the proportion with a high school background is 36.17%. Participation in religious education is relatively low in this group: 15.74% of cluster members received such education.

The fourth cluster (n = 206; 21.22%) can be identified as a group of students who primarily come from urban backgrounds and urban schools and who are typically distant from religious education. 80.58% of the cluster’s members live in cities, and nearly all of them attended urban elementary schools (97.09%). In terms of parental education, this group is also dominated by vocational/technical school and secondary school graduates: 48.06% of fathers have vocational or technical school qualifications, and 31.55% have a secondary school diploma, while for mothers, these proportions are 32.04% and 40.29%, respectively. The secondary school background is relatively heterogeneous: 44.17% attended a high secondary school, 33.01% attended a healthcare secondary school, and 22.82% attended a non-healthcare-specialized vocational school. The most striking feature of the cluster is the near-total absence of religious education: only 1.94% received religious education.

3.3. Career Choice Patterns and Occupational Prestige by Student Background Type

To provide a more in-depth characterization of student background types, cross-tabulation analyses were used to examine differences among clusters in the timing of choosing the nursing profession, motivations for career choice, and perceptions of the nursing profession’s social prestige.

Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of career choice patterns and occupational prestige in the total sample.

Variable	Option	Sample (N)	Ratio (%)
At what stage of your life did you decide to become a nurse?	Elementary school age or younger	325	33.47
	High school age	236	24.30
	After graduating from high school	410	42.22
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - Influence of parents and acquaintances	Did not influence at all	500	52.25
	Influenced to a lesser extent	238	24.87
	Influenced	219	22.88
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - There are several healthcare workers in my family and among my friends	Did not influence at all	567	59.00
	Influenced to a lesser extent	180	18.73
	Influenced	214	22.27
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - Career opportunities in the field	Did not influence at all	377	39.23
	Influenced to a lesser extent	308	32.05
	Influenced	276	28.72
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - I was accepted into this vocational program based on my academic grades	Did not influence at all	660	68.97
	Had little influence	159	16.61
	Had influence	138	14.42
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - I enjoy helping people and working with them	Had no influence at all	47	4.89
	Had little influence	135	14.03
	Had influence	780	81.08
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Job security	Had no influence at all	162	16.75
	Had little influence	271	28.02
	Had influence	534	55.22
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Social recognition	Had no influence at all	440	45.83
	Had little influence	340	35.42
	Had influence	180	18.75
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Earning potential	Had no influence at all	427	44.53
	Had little influence	375	39.10
	Had influence	157	16.37
What was your parents’ opinion of your career choice?	Opposed the election	136	14.01
	Supported the election	835	85.99
In your opinion, what is the social prestige of the nursing profession like?	Very low	148	15.24
	Somewhat lower	503	51.80
	Somewhat higher	309	31.82
	Very high	11	1.13
Do you think the prestige of the nursing profession will increase or continue to increase in the future?	No	209	21.52
	Yes	387	39.86
	Don’t know/No answer	375	38.62

Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of career choice patterns and occupational prestige in the total sample.

Variable	Option	Sample (N)	Ratio (%)
At what stage of your life did you decide to become a nurse?	Elementary school age or younger	325	33.47
	High school age	236	24.30
	After graduating from high school	410	42.22
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - Influence of parents and acquaintances	Did not influence at all	500	52.25
	Influenced to a lesser extent	238	24.87
	Influenced	219	22.88
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - There are several healthcare workers in my family and among my friends	Did not influence at all	567	59.00
	Influenced to a lesser extent	180	18.73
	Influenced	214	22.27
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - Career opportunities in the field	Did not influence at all	377	39.23
	Influenced to a lesser extent	308	32.05
	Influenced	276	28.72
How did the following factors influence your choice of career? - I was accepted into this vocational program based on my academic grades	Did not influence at all	660	68.97
	Had little influence	159	16.61
	Had influence	138	14.42
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - I enjoy helping people and working with them	Had no influence at all	47	4.89
	Had little influence	135	14.03
	Had influence	780	81.08
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Job security	Had no influence at all	162	16.75
	Had little influence	271	28.02
	Had influence	534	55.22
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Social recognition	Had no influence at all	440	45.83
	Had little influence	340	35.42
	Had influence	180	18.75
How did the following factors influence your career choice? - Earning potential	Had no influence at all	427	44.53
	Had little influence	375	39.10
	Had influence	157	16.37
What was your parents’ opinion of your career choice?	Opposed the election	136	14.01
	Supported the election	835	85.99
In your opinion, what is the social prestige of the nursing profession like?	Very low	148	15.24
	Somewhat lower	503	51.80
	Somewhat higher	309	31.82
	Very high	11	1.13
Do you think the prestige of the nursing profession will increase or continue to increase in the future?	No	209	21.52
	Yes	387	39.86
	Don’t know/No answer	375	38.62

The stage of life at which students chose the nursing profession showed a significant difference across student background types (χ² (6) =62.523; p<0.001; Cramer’s V=0.179). The proportion of students who had already oriented towards the nursing profession during elementary school or earlier was the highest among students with healthcare orientation living in rural areas (44.20%), while the majority of students from families with a college education background (61.90%) decided to pursue nursing after high school graduation.

The perception of job security showed a significant correlation with cluster membership (χ² (6) =23.422; p=0.001; Cramer’s V=0.110). Job security was the most prevalent among students with a healthcare orientation living in rural areas (60.83%).

Social prestige, as a factor of career choice, also showed a significant difference between the clusters (χ² (6) =24.090; p=0.001; Cramer’s V=0.112). 24.02% of students with healthcare orientation living in rural areas identified this as an influencing factor.

The role of earning potential also showed a significant association with cluster membership (χ² (6) =22.277; p=0.001; Cramer’s V=0.108). This motivation was the most prevalent among students with healthcare orientation living in rural areas (20.95%).

Perceptions of the current social prestige of the graduate nursing profession also differed significantly across student background types (χ² (9) =28.111; p=0.001; Cramer’s V=0.098). More positive perceptions of prestige were more common among students with healthcare orientation living in rural areas and those with an urban mobility background.

Based on the non-significant results, the clusters did not differ substantially in terms of the influence of parents and acquaintances, the presence of healthcare workers among family or friends, career opportunities, the role of academic grades, a supportive attitude, parental support, perceptions of future prestige, or willingness to recommend the profession to others.

3.4. Awareness and Perception of the GNRP

There was no significant difference in awareness of the GNRP across the identified student background categories (χ² (3) = 1.394; p = 0.707). The proportion of those students who had heard of the program previously was similar across all clusters (28–33%).

69.72% of respondents had no prior information about the program.

Perceptions of the program’s role in supporting professional development differed significantly across clusters (F (3,967) =2.933; p = 0.033). Students from families with a college education rated the program’s professional usefulness more positively than students from urban middle-class and urban mobility backgrounds.

A significant difference was also observed in the assessment of the program’s prestige-enhancing effect (F (3,967) = 2.841; p = 0.037), though post hoc comparisons did not clearly indicate distinct cluster pairs.

No significant differences were found between background types in the assessment of the program’s innovativeness (F (3,967) = 0.454; p = 0.715) or in opinions regarding organizational acceptance (F (3,967) =0,510; p=0,675) or professional support (F(3,967) = 0.556; p = 0.644).

3.5. Student Background Types and Perceptions of the Structural Elements of the GNRP

Based on the MANOVA results, cluster membership had a significant overall effect on the evaluation of program characteristics (Pillai’s Trace = 0.044; F (18,2790) = 2.311; p = 0.001; partial η² = 0.015).

A separate analysis of individual program characteristics showed that a significant difference between clusters emerged exclusively with respect to the evaluation of the rotation system (F = 5.242; p = 0.001). Students from families with a university-degree background rated the program feature more favorably, in the sense that resident nurses can become familiar with all patient care units in the hospital through the three-month rotation.

No significant differences were observed among the student background groups in their assessment of the program’s other features, i.e., professional mentoring, spiritual mentoring, theoretical continuing education, the two-year training period, and integration into the hospital’s organizational culture and professional environment.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify student background types based on the social and socialization characteristics of BSc nursing students in Hungary, and to examine correlations between these background types and nursing career choice patterns, perceptions of professional prestige, and attitudes towards the resident graduate nursing program. The results of the current study indicate that the student population examined cannot be considered homogeneous. Rather, this student population has distinct subgroups with clearly distinguishable social and socialization characteristics. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of Price’s meta-synthesis, which states that the choice of a nursing career and the development of professional identity depend, to a significant extent, on early socialization experiences [6]. Johnson and colleagues, as well as McClunie-Trust and colleagues, reached a similar conclusion linking the development of professional identity to students’ prior social and educational experiences [11,12].

The cluster analysis identified four distinct student background types, among which the group of students with healthcare orientation living in rural areas is particularly noteworthy. This cluster not only had the largest number of participants but also exhibited a distinctive pattern across several indicators of career choice. Members of this group were more likely to have decided on a nursing career at a young age, and they more frequently cited job security, social recognition, and earning potential as motivations for their career choice. Our findings are consistent with those of Eley and colleagues, who found that entering the nursing profession is motivated by both altruistic and pragmatic factors [7]. Lommi and colleagues, who studied Generation Z students, also pointed out that, in addition to willingness to help others, job security and opportunities for career advancement play an increasingly important role in career choices [8]. Lin and colleagues’ longitudinal qualitative study provided further evidence that the formation of professional identity is a dynamic process influenced by both internal motivations and external sociocultural factors [25].

In addition, our findings also revealed that social background is linked not only to the timing of career choice but also to the social perception of the profession. Students with a healthcare orientation living in rural areas and those with an urban mobility background rated the current prestige of the graduate nursing profession more positively than members of other clusters did. This finding is consistent with the research of Johnson et al. and Lommi et al., which suggests that professional identity and perceptions of the profession’s social standing are closely linked [8,11]. A more positive perception of the profession’s social value can contribute to greater professional commitment and retention, which is particularly important in the context of the current global nursing shortage [25].

Awareness of the GNRP was similarly low across all demographic groups, suggesting that information about the program is not currently reaching students effectively. It is particularly noteworthy that nearly 70 percent of respondents had not heard of the program before. This finding is particularly concerning given that the WHO emphasizes the strategic importance of both recruiting and retaining the nursing workforce [1]. In their review, Morris and colleagues concluded that programs designed to support new entrants to the workforce can make a significant contribution to workforce retention and professional integration [2]. Furthermore, Mohamed and Al-Hmaimat’s systematic review confirmed that residency programs can positively impact the retention of new graduates and the success of their integration into organizations [24].

In general, the results of the program evaluation presented a mostly favorable picture. Students rated the program’s role in supporting professional development positively, and, for most of the program characteristics examined, there were no significant differences across background types. The findings of this study are consistent with the integrative reviews by Edwards et al. and Rush et al., which indicate that transitional and residency programs contribute to the development of professional competencies, increased self-confidence, organizational integration, and career retention [18,19]. Additionally, a mixed-methods study by Charette and colleagues found that structured transition programs significantly improve newly graduated nurses’ clinical competence, job satisfaction, and sense of support [5]. According to Vázquez-Calatayud’s systematic review, one-year-long residency programs that include preceptorship, mentoring and competency development significantly reduce turnover [21]. Besides, Eckerson’s evidence-based literature review confirmed that one-year residency programs are more effective than traditional orientation programs at retaining newly graduated nurses and ensuring their satisfaction [20].

The main difference between the clusters was evident in their assessments of the rotation system, which students from higher-education families rated more favorably. This finding may be related to the fact that members of this group place greater emphasis on professional development and career-building opportunities. This finding resounds with earlier findings in the literature. The importance of structured professional socialization and exposure to various clinical areas was also highlighted by McClunie-Trust and colleagues, as well as by Pleshkan in their research examining the professional development of entry-level nurses [12,22]. Graf and colleagues’ critical review highlighted that key components of effective transition programs include structured preceptorship, gradual assumption of responsibility, and exposure to various clinical settings [26].

5. Conclusions

Based on the study’s results, BSc nursing students in Hungary cannot be considered a homogeneous group, as distinct student backgrounds can be identified by their social and sociocultural characteristics. The identified background types were associated with different career choice patterns, motivations, and attitudes regarding the social perception of the nursing profession.

Our findings suggest that social background and educational trajectory may influence not only the timing of career choice but also perceptions regarding the nursing profession and professional advancement. Motivations related to job security and social prestige are more prominent among students with a healthcare orientation living in rural areas, whereas students with higher cultural capital regard programs that support professional development more favorably.

Awareness of the GNRP was low across all student background types, yet attitudes towards the program were generally favorable. The results suggest that when developing and communicating the program, it is worthwhile to take into account the social and educational diversity of the student population and to place greater emphasis on increasing awareness of the program.

The current research contributes to a better understanding of the career-choice characteristics and professional attitudes of BSc-level nursing students and provides new empirical findings that can support the professional integration of newly graduated nurses and the future development of GNRP.