Mentorship in nursing a literature review
Peer review ship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing s examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. We will search electronic databases (for example, medline, cinahl, eric) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing dsmentorshipmentorscareer choicecareer mobilitynursingnursesacademiafacultysystematic oundone of the many challenges in nursing education today is the shortage of nursing faculty [1]. The number of nurses in the workforce continues to decrease, as does the number of nursing faculty needed to teach new nurses to ensure quality health care delivery, to study health problems, to address patient issues, and to inform health policy. Nursing faculty shortages have not received the same attention as registered nursing (rn) shortages, but the problem is no less critical. The shortage of qualified nursing faculty is an issue of local, national, and international concern and is anticipated to worsen [3]. Diminished nursing faculty directly impacts the ability to admit and graduate adequate numbers of students for the nursing workforce [3-5], which further impedes resolution of workforce shortages. Nursing faculty shortage has implications for nursing research and its influence, particularly at a time when health system transformation is of paramount importance globally [12]. Generation, dissemination, and application of evidence is essential to maintain and expand any discipline [13], and the recognition of nursing as a profession and academic discipline is greatly dependent on evidence-based practice, with nursing knowledge imparted through education and advanced through scholarship [14]. Deliberate attention must be given to scholarship in order for the nursing discipline to advance and keep pace with parallel advancements in medical and related subspecialties, to advance evidence-based practice, and to inform effective, sustainable health care. The absence of an academic nursing presence from front-line care, administration, research, and policy arenas is of long-term detriment to patient outcomes and the nursing profession. The expansion of nursing science has shown to be instrumental in the provision of better patient care and improved health [16]. 2004, wood, giovanetti, and ross-kerr [15] acknowledged that the number of doctoral students would not sufficiently meet the needs of nursing schools across canada.
Words to use in a literature review
Five years later, the canadian nurses association (cna) and canadian association of schools of nursing (casn) reported a need for 3,673 nurses with master’s degrees and 650 nurses with doctoral degrees to meet existing school of nursing faculty vacancies [11]. Diminished enrollees and graduates in doctoral nursing programs have also been acknowledged in the usa. In 2004, the american association of colleges of nursing (accn) reported that insufficient number of faculty resulted in over 75,000 qualified applicants being refused entrance into baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral nursing programs [17]. Although insufficient statistics are currently available from australia, new zealand, and the united kingdom, the council of deans of nursing and midwifery of australia and new zealand have warned that an academic nursing workforce shortage is imminent [18]. There is an urgent need to advance evidence-based nursing practice and skills focused on increasing population health, more efficient and effective health services and systems, and returning value on public investments. Nursing faculty shortage will hinder the ability to educate future nurses, erode the potential for research to advance clinical practice, and result in the loss of nursing leadership needed to advance the profession [19]. Of the nursing faculty ing to iom [16], the root causes of this inability to meet undergraduate nursing educational needs were partly due to nursing faculty shortages, inadequate workforce planning, and decreasing educational capacity to meet market demand. The following key influences have been cited: (a) salary disparities, (b) aging academic workforce, (c) changing faculty workload demands and role expectations, (d) career opportunities in clinical and private sectors, (e) diminished student numbers preparing for faculty positions, and (f) inadequate institutional funding for additional faculty g faculty are one of the most poorly compensated categories in the nursing profession [16]. Nursing faculty members are within the same demographic era that has partly influenced the current lack of rns, academic nursing is further impacted by more rapid aging out of employment than clinical nursing due to later career stream entry [22]. Nursing faculty tend to be older than clinical nurses given advanced degree requirements to teach [16]. Resignation and retirements are projected to reduce the current nursing faculty greatly over the next decade [14]. As aging faculty contributes to attrition, it is important that the next generation of nursing faculty be identified early, encouraged, nurtured, and welcomed into academia [23]. Faculty mentorship is suggested as a way to successfully foster a collegial, caring environment; these supportive relationships are positive strategies that help to retain rns in faculty positions [24]. Increased opportunities outside academia for phd-trained nurses further contribute to the shortage of nursing faculty [26]. If adequate enrolment were not a problem, both us and canadian nursing programs have lacked the funds to create new teaching positions [22]. Canadian nursing schools have identified the lack of sustainable funding to create full-time positions as a major challenge, limiting their ability to recruit new faculty [4]. With such staggering nursing faculty workforce statistics, recruitment and retention of new nursing faculty are critical strategies. Mentorship has been identified by the national league for nursing [27] as one way to address the nursing faculty shortage by encouraging rns to begin and remain in nursing faculty ce for evidence base for mentorship interventions has evolved in business, medicine, and education literature. Most mentorship studies conducted to date are observational or qualitative, and the conclusions are not conclusive.
Systematic reviews on mentorship in corporate settings have reported increased job satisfaction and perceived increases in career advancement opportunities for those that received mentorship, compared to those who did not [28]. A systematic review of mentorship in academic medicine reported that mentorship has a significant influence on personal development, career guidance, career choice, and research productivity, recruitment, and retention [29]. Within the education literature, similar reviews have identified mentorship as improving the socialization, orientation, and career outcomes of faculty [30]. Evidence of mentorship in nursing academia has not yet been g education institutions that have established mentoring programs reported positive outcomes for nursing faculty such as improved morale, higher career satisfaction, increased self-confidence, increased professional development, increased publication, obtaining more grants, and quicker promotion [31,32]. While the nursing literature contains numerous references to the importance of mentoring, mentorship in nursing academia is not an established standard the potential importance of mentoring in nursing academia, a systematic review is needed to identify and describe how mentoring interventions in the field of nursing academia were developed, implemented, and evaluated. These data will help determine whether there is a sufficient range of methodologically rigorous evidence to support the development of mentorship interventions in nursing academia. This systematic review may also contribute a gap analysis and guide the objectives and designs of future mentorship interventions in nursing systematic review question is: what is the nature and strength of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia? The main objective of this mixed-methods systematic review is to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative literature that addresses mentorship in nursing academia. Findings that are relevant to the mentee, mentor, and nursing education institution will be included. Findings that address outcomes, including but not limited to knowledge, skills, attitudes, career progression, recruitment, retention, and costs, will be s/designthis mixed-methods systematic review protocol is based on the prisma [35] and entreq [36] reporting guidelines. The design follows the joanna briggs institute (jbi) [37] approach for conducting systematic reviews of both quantitative and qualitative research. Joanna briggs institute, adelaide, sa, australia) and analytical modules, including the meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review instrument (jbi-mastari), qualitative assessment and review instrument (jbi-qari), and mixed methods assessment and review instrument (jbi-mmari) [39]. This protocol has not been registered with prospero, as protocols for systematic reviews of studies not related to health conditions and health-related outcomes are not currently eligible for question of relevance is: what is the nature and strength of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia? Studies involving undergraduate nursing students, staff nurses, nursing educators who teach in licensed nursing programs, and/or nursing assistant programs will be excluded. We will exclude studies where verification of inclusion criteria is not s that explore formal and informal mentorship interventions including, but not limited to, dyadic mentoring, peer mentoring, online mentoring, and tele-mentoring will be ed by other medical, education, and business studies, this review will report on the outcomes of measures that are relevant to the mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutions. Similar to other published non-nursing meta-analyses on mentorship [40,41], variables that are conceptually similar will be combined. We will include new variables if es of oral performancescholarly productivity (grants, publications)review of mentor and mentee cvs retentionnumbers of mentees and mentors retaineddepartmental annual reports recruitmentnumbers of recruits stating mentoring influenced their decision to join the facultysurveys of faculty recruitedattitudinal situational satisfactionjob satisfaction, organizational commitmentmentor and mentee surveys and interviews career attitudescareer satisfaction, career expectations, perceived employment opportunitymentor and mentee surveys and interviewshealth-related self-perceptionsself-esteem, self-efficacymentor and mentee surveys and interviewsrelational interpersonal relationspositive peer relations, satisfaction with coworkers, peer support, relationship qualitymentor and mentee surveys and interviewsmotivational motivation/involvementcareer planning, job involvement, motivation, aspiration, career commitmentmentor and mentee surveys and interviewscareer career recognition and successacademic rank, promotionreview of mentor and mentee cvs skill competence and developmentwork knowledge, academic socialization, self-efficacy with academic skillsdepartmental annual reportsmentor and mentee surveys and , curriculum review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies that report on mentorship on nursing academia without restriction by study design, publication status, year of publication, or ation sources and search to commencing the study search, a preliminary search of existing systematic reviews will be made through database of abstracts and reviews (dare), medline, and prospero to identify studies relevant to this review. A search to identify gray literature (non-peer-reviewed works) will be undertaken by scanning proquest dissertations and theses, index to theses, and mentorship conference proceedings. Experts in the field and corresponding authors of key studies will be contacted to gather further information on gray literature.
The authors will undertake a bibliographic search of all eligible studies to identify and retrieve other relevant studies for the search strategy was designed with the assistance of an experienced nursing librarian to focus on maximum sensitivity and to be as extensive as possible to identify all possible eligible studies and then refined according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The first phase will involve screening of titles and abstracts by two reviewers, independently using a structured data entry form. To minimize the risk of bias, data screening forms will be pilot tested by reviewers on the first 50 studies to ensure consistency and reliability. Studies identified as potentially relevant will be passed to the next screening phase two, the same two reviewers will independently review full-text versions of all potentially relevant studies. To minimize the risk of bias, both reviewers will be trained on the use of the eligibility form prior to beginning the review. Eligibility forms will be pilot tested by the reviewers on the first ten identified full texts to ensure consistency and reliability between the reviewers. Unresolved disagreements will be referred to a third investigator for review and collection process and data a final set of included studies is established, data will be extracted independently by two researchers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria using two standardized data extraction instruments: one specific to quantitative studies (jbi-mastari) and one specific to qualitative studies (jbi-qari). To minimize the risk of bias, reviewers will be trained on both data extraction forms prior to extracting data. The data extraction forms will be pilot tested by the reviewers on the first ten included studies to ensure consistency and reliability between the reviewers. In the absence of consensus, disagreements will be referred to a third investigator for review and resolution. Table 3 shows data categories that will be extracted from all the studies categories extracted from included l informationid numbers, authors, title of article, type of publication, year of publication, and languagestudy characteristicsaim of the study, study designs, inclusions and exclusion criteria, recruitment procedures and sample sizeparticipant characteristicsage (mean/sd), gender, years of experience as a rn (mean/sd), years of experience in academia (mean/sd), and other characteristics of interest described by the authors of the studiessettingcountry, institution, and other setting characteristics described by the authors of the studiesmentorship interventionsdescription of the mentorship intervention(s) and how the intervention(s) was developed, implemented, and evaluatedoutcomesprimary and secondary outcomes and definition for each outcome reportedethical characteristicsethics approval, informed consent, information provided to , registered nurse; sd, standard s that have been published in duplicate will be retained and assessed in full text; the most comprehensive study will be included. Any unresolved disagreement between the two reviewers will be solved by referral to a third ment of methodological quality/risk of bias in individual included study will be assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Both reviewers have completed the assessment process, the primary reviewer will compare the two sets of appraisals. Any discordant response will be first discussed by the first two reviewers and referred to a third reviewer if a resolution cannot be reached. All non-english literature identified in the search will be screened and reviewed by one interpreter. Finally, all themes will be aggregated to generate a set of recommendations for mentorship in practice and mentorship l atic reviews should not ignore ethical considerations [44]. An ethical assessment will be conducted for all included studies in this systematic review, and an assessment of ethics approval for all gray literature will be confirmed. The ethical characteristics will be collected and summarized in the discussion of the systematic review ty and order to ensure decisions are not biased, a systematic review team has been established to conduct this systematic review. The team includes a knowledge expert with a research focus on mentorship, systematic review methodologists, and a nursing research librarian.
- nasty gal business plan
- delimitation of the study
- gliederung bachelorarbeit mathematik
- forestry business plan
To minimize the risk of error, reviewers will be trained on the use of all selection, appraisal, and extraction forms prior to beginning the review. The forms will be pilot tested by the reviewers to ensure consistency and reliability between the sionthis study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing systematic review protocol considers both quantitative and qualitative studies. In response to these concerns, the development process of this systematic review is illustrated in figure 1. The robust method of this systematic review protocol enables critical appraisal and synthesis of the cumulate global evidence on the topic, while preserving the integrity of findings from different study designs and providing precise results with rich contextual atic review development. Jbi, joanna briggs institute; jbi-mastari, joanna briggs institute meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review instrument; jbi-qari, joanna briggs institute qualitative assessment and review current lack of knowledge synthesis is a major limitation of the current state of evidence on mentorship strategies aimed at addressing the nursing faculty shortage. Although a number of mentorship outcomes (increased recruitment, retention, promotion, job satisfaction, occupation commitment, career progression, skills development, self-efficacy, publications, grants, and decreased administrative costs) have been identified in medicine, business, and education literature, presently, the outcomes of mentorship in academic nursing remain unclear. The absence of a systematic review that identifies, critically appraises, and synthesizes the current evidence for mentorship interventions presents a dilemma for policy makers. Failing to provide a consensus understanding of appropriate mentorship approaches and positive mentorship outcomes has left policy makers with limited guidance regarding which alternatives to consider when designing mentorship strategies to alleviate the nursing faculty shortage [46]. We have planned this review to address this current knowledge findings of this systematic review may have implications for policy, practice, and research. The results of this systematic review will provide a comprehensive examination of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia and highlight gaps where future research on mentorship remains to be conducted. Given the significant resources required to fund mentorship innovations, understanding the benefits and shortcomings of various strategies may ensure that scarce resources are devoted to the most efficient and effective strategies. The result from this review could be used to guide administrators and policy makers to most effectively implement mentorship innovations aimed at addressing the nursing faculty to the complexities and diversity of mentorship interventions and limited availability of quantitative studies, the extent to which clear conclusions can be drawn about the usefulness of mentorship may be limited. However, this review will provide clarity on the existing evidence for mentorship in nursing academia and identify areas for future an association of colleges of an nurses an association of schools of briggs briggs institute meta-analysis of statistics assessment and review briggs institute mixed methods assessment and review briggs institute qualitative assessment and review briggs institute system for the unified management, assessment and review of s’ affiliations(1)faculty of nursing, university of calgary(2)department of community health sciences, cumming school of medicine, university of ons & , zotero, reference manager, refworks (. Use cookies to improve your experience with our information about our cookie article has open peer review reports does open peer review work? Use cookies to improve your experience with our information about our cookie continuing to browse this site you agree to us using cookies as described in about cookies remove maintenance message to old article view ctmentorship in nursing: a literature review¶ the recent increase in published work relating to the supervision of nurses and in particular mentorship suggests that nurses value the opportunities that such schemes present for developing practice. Much of the literature surrounding mentorship concerns the supervision of students in practice settings but more recently, especially following the changes to post‐registration education, attention has shifted to the supervision of qualified nurses. This review examines the literature associated with the supervision of student nurses and focuses on the nature and practice of mentorship in practice settings. The literature reveals that confusion exists regarding both the concept of mentorship and the role of the mentor.
Kb) close article support student-mentor relationship: a review of the student-mentor relationship is a complex one, which can be rewarding as well as problematic at times. Have a personal £25 to access this end to your nursing ce-based ng disability health g children and young article: the student-mentor relationship: a review of the student-mentor relationship: a review of the student-mentor relationship is a complex one, which can be rewarding as well as problematic at times. Have a personal £25 to access this end to your nursing ce-based ng disability health g children and young article: the student-mentor relationship: a review of the literature.