Nursing effectiveness reconsidered: Some fundamental reflections on the nature of nursing.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Hanna Mayer, Martin Wallner
{"title":"Nursing effectiveness reconsidered: Some fundamental reflections on the nature of nursing.","authors":"Hanna Mayer, Martin Wallner","doi":"10.1111/nup.12505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite being considered the proverbial backbone of our healthcare systems, nursing still seems to struggle to scientifically demonstrate its contribution to care experiences and patient outcomes. This leads to erosive tendencies that threaten the development of the profession and its progress as an academic discipline. With this paper, we want to contribute to the theoretical discourse concerning the nature of nursing and the research into its effectiveness. We begin by outlining a set of prevailing paradoxes and their consequences relating to nursing and nursing research: the issue of demonstrating its unique contribution despite a clear societal mandate; a discrepancy between subjectively experienced effectiveness and objectively ascertainable effectiveness; and a mismatch between theoretical premises of nursing and task-oriented cultures in practice environments. Using an example of a seemingly simple nursing intervention, we intend to demonstrate the qualities and complexities of nursing. We further illustrate this by drawing on several of our research projects using theory-based evaluation methodologies. From these illustrative examples, we distil two insights relating to nursing interventions that we consider fundamental: the nurse, as a person, is central to its unique effectiveness; and there is always an interplay between context, intervention and its intended effect. We summarise our considerations and argue the case for conceiving research designs in alignment with theoretical premises of nursing.</p>","PeriodicalId":49724,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12505","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite being considered the proverbial backbone of our healthcare systems, nursing still seems to struggle to scientifically demonstrate its contribution to care experiences and patient outcomes. This leads to erosive tendencies that threaten the development of the profession and its progress as an academic discipline. With this paper, we want to contribute to the theoretical discourse concerning the nature of nursing and the research into its effectiveness. We begin by outlining a set of prevailing paradoxes and their consequences relating to nursing and nursing research: the issue of demonstrating its unique contribution despite a clear societal mandate; a discrepancy between subjectively experienced effectiveness and objectively ascertainable effectiveness; and a mismatch between theoretical premises of nursing and task-oriented cultures in practice environments. Using an example of a seemingly simple nursing intervention, we intend to demonstrate the qualities and complexities of nursing. We further illustrate this by drawing on several of our research projects using theory-based evaluation methodologies. From these illustrative examples, we distil two insights relating to nursing interventions that we consider fundamental: the nurse, as a person, is central to its unique effectiveness; and there is always an interplay between context, intervention and its intended effect. We summarise our considerations and argue the case for conceiving research designs in alignment with theoretical premises of nursing.

重新考虑护理的有效性:对护理性质的一些基本思考。
尽管护理被认为是我们医疗保健系统中众所周知的支柱,但似乎仍难以科学地证明其对护理经验和患者疗效的贡献。这导致了侵蚀性倾向,威胁着护理专业的发展及其作为一门学科的进步。通过本文,我们希望为有关护理性质及其有效性研究的理论探讨做出贡献。我们首先概述了一系列与护理和护理研究相关的普遍悖论及其后果:尽管有明确的社会任务,但如何证明其独特贡献的问题;主观体验的有效性与客观可确定的有效性之间的差异;护理理论前提与实践环境中以任务为导向的文化之间的不匹配。通过一个看似简单的护理干预实例,我们意在展示护理工作的特质和复杂性。我们将通过几个使用基于理论的评估方法的研究项目来进一步说明这一点。从这些示例中,我们提炼出与护理干预有关的两个基本观点:护士作为一个人,是其独特有效性的核心;背景、干预及其预期效果之间始终存在相互作用。我们总结了我们的考虑,并论证了根据护理理论前提构思研究设计的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
39
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Philosophy provides a forum for discussion of philosophical issues in nursing. These focus on questions relating to the nature of nursing and to the phenomena of key relevance to it. For example, any understanding of what nursing is presupposes some conception of just what nurses are trying to do when they nurse. But what are the ends of nursing? Are they to promote health, prevent disease, promote well-being, enhance autonomy, relieve suffering, or some combination of these? How are these ends are to be met? What kind of knowledge is needed in order to nurse? Practical, theoretical, aesthetic, moral, political, ''intuitive'' or some other? Papers that explore other aspects of philosophical enquiry and analysis of relevance to nursing (and any other healthcare or social care activity) are also welcome and might include, but not be limited to, critical discussions of the work of nurse theorists who have advanced philosophical claims (e.g., Benner, Benner and Wrubel, Carper, Schrok, Watson, Parse and so on) as well as critical engagement with philosophers (e.g., Heidegger, Husserl, Kuhn, Polanyi, Taylor, MacIntyre and so on) whose work informs health care in general and nursing in particular.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信