Pflegeforschung in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland: ein Scoping-Review

IF 1.7 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2025.05.006

Dorothee Bauernschmidt , Martin N. Dichter , Annegret Horbach , Gabriele Meyer , Martin Müller , Anne Christin Rahn , Ralph Möhler

{"title":"Pflegeforschung in der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie in Deutschland: ein Scoping-Review","authors":"Dorothee Bauernschmidt , Martin N. Dichter , Annegret Horbach , Gabriele Meyer , Martin Müller , Anne Christin Rahn , Ralph Möhler","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.05.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a major impact on nursing and healthcare as well as on research. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of nursing- and SARS-CoV-2-related research in Germany.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A scoping review was conducted. We systematically searched (06/2023) Medline, CINAHL, the German Register of Clinical Trials, abstract books of conferences and conducted a manual literature search. We included empirical studies addressing aspects of nursing and the pandemic and involving German researchers. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results were analysed descriptively.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 131 publications (85 quantitative, 27 qualitative, 6 mixed-/multi-methods studies, 12 systematic reviews, 1 discussion paper); 49 % of the studies were published in 2021. First authors were mostly from medicine, psychology and nursing science, last authors from medicine. Most studies were explorative. Most of the quantitative studies used observational designs, only four were experimental. Nurses and other healthcare professionals were the most common target group; people with care needs or relatives were rarely addressed. The most common topics included health, perceived burden, working conditions, and characteristics of care during the pandemic. A quarter of the studies were not externally funded, 32 % did not provide information on funding. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (21 %) was the most common funding body.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Pandemic-related nursing research was published to a limited extent by nursing scientists; clinical nursing research was particularly underrepresented. Dependable funding and the development of a research infrastructure for nursing research are necessary to ensure evidence-based nursing in times of crisis and to generate findings that are relevant to clinical practice and health policy decision-makers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":"197 ","pages":"Pages 79-88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921725001515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a major impact on nursing and healthcare as well as on research. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of nursing- and SARS-CoV-2-related research in Germany.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted. We systematically searched (06/2023) Medline, CINAHL, the German Register of Clinical Trials, abstract books of conferences and conducted a manual literature search. We included empirical studies addressing aspects of nursing and the pandemic and involving German researchers. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results were analysed descriptively.

Results

We included 131 publications (85 quantitative, 27 qualitative, 6 mixed-/multi-methods studies, 12 systematic reviews, 1 discussion paper); 49 % of the studies were published in 2021. First authors were mostly from medicine, psychology and nursing science, last authors from medicine. Most studies were explorative. Most of the quantitative studies used observational designs, only four were experimental. Nurses and other healthcare professionals were the most common target group; people with care needs or relatives were rarely addressed. The most common topics included health, perceived burden, working conditions, and characteristics of care during the pandemic. A quarter of the studies were not externally funded, 32 % did not provide information on funding. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (21 %) was the most common funding body.

Conclusion

Pandemic-related nursing research was published to a limited extent by nursing scientists; clinical nursing research was particularly underrepresented. Dependable funding and the development of a research infrastructure for nursing research are necessary to ensure evidence-based nursing in times of crisis and to generate findings that are relevant to clinical practice and health policy decision-makers.

查看原文本刊更多论文

[德国SARS-CoV-2大流行中的护理研究：范围回顾]。

背景：SARS-CoV-2大流行对护理卫生和研究产生了重大影响。本研究的目的是分析德国护理和sars - cov -2相关研究的特点。方法：进行范围综述。我们系统检索（06/2023）Medline、CINAHL、German Register of Clinical Trials、会议摘要书籍，并进行手工文献检索。我们纳入了涉及护理和大流行方面的实证研究，并涉及德国研究人员。研究选择和数据提取由两名审稿人独立进行。对结果进行描述性分析。结果：我们纳入了131篇出版物（85篇定量研究，27篇定性研究，6篇混合/多方法研究，12篇系统综述，1篇讨论论文）；49% %的研究发表于2021年。第一作者大多来自医学、心理学和护理科学，最后作者来自医学。大多数研究都是探索性的。大多数定量研究采用观察设计，只有四项采用实验设计。护士和其他医疗专业人员是最常见的目标群体；需要照顾的人或亲属很少得到照顾。最常见的主题包括健康、感知负担、工作条件和大流行期间的护理特点。四分之一的研究没有外部资助，32% %没有提供有关资助的信息。联邦教育和研究部（21% %）是最常见的资助机构。结论：护理科学家发表的与大流行相关的护理研究有限；临床护理研究的代表性尤其不足。可靠的资金和护理研究基础设施的发展对于确保危机时期的循证护理和产生与临床实践和卫生政策决策者相关的研究结果是必要的。

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

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

18.20%

发文量

129