Uncovering the Professional Landscape of Clinical Research Nursing: A Scoping Review with Data Mining Approach.

IF 2 Q1 NURSING
Mattia Bozzetti, Monica Guberti, Alessio Lo Cascio, Daniele Privitera, Catia Genna, Silvia Rodelli, Laura Turchini, Valeria Amatucci, Luciana Nicola Giordano, Vincenzina Mora, Daniele Napolitano, Rosario Caruso
{"title":"Uncovering the Professional Landscape of Clinical Research Nursing: A Scoping Review with Data Mining Approach.","authors":"Mattia Bozzetti, Monica Guberti, Alessio Lo Cascio, Daniele Privitera, Catia Genna, Silvia Rodelli, Laura Turchini, Valeria Amatucci, Luciana Nicola Giordano, Vincenzina Mora, Daniele Napolitano, Rosario Caruso","doi":"10.3390/nursrep15080266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Clinical Research Nurses (CRNs) have emerged as pivotal actors in the conduct, coordination, and oversight of clinical trials globally. Over the past three decades, the role of the CRN has evolved in response to the increasing complexity of research protocols, ethical standards, and regulatory frameworks. Originating as task-oriented support figures, CRNs have progressively assumed broader responsibilities that include patient advocacy, protocol integrity, ethical vigilance, and interprofessional coordination. By mapping the global literature on CRNs, this review will examine how their role has been defined, implemented, and evaluated over the past three decades. <b>Methods</b>: A scoping review was conducted using JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search covered the peer-reviewed and gray literature from 1990 to 2024 across major databases. Data analysis combined traditional extraction with topic modeling, Multiple Correspondence Analysis, and k-means clustering to identify key themes. <b>Results</b>: From the 128 included studies, four major themes emerged: clinical trial management, role perception and team integration, professional competencies and development, and systemic barriers. Despite formal competency frameworks, CRNs face inconsistencies in role recognition, unstable contracts, and limited career pathways. Emotional strain and professional isolation are recurrent. Over time, their functions have evolved from task execution to broader responsibilities, including advocacy and ethical oversight. However, no studies reported patient-level outcomes, revealing a critical gap in the evidence base. <b>Conclusions</b>: CRNs play a vital but undervalued role in clinical research. Persistent structural challenges hinder their development and visibility. Enhancing institutional support and generating outcome-based evidence are necessary steps toward fully integrating CRNs into research infrastructures.</p>","PeriodicalId":40753,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Reports","volume":"15 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12388699/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep15080266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Clinical Research Nurses (CRNs) have emerged as pivotal actors in the conduct, coordination, and oversight of clinical trials globally. Over the past three decades, the role of the CRN has evolved in response to the increasing complexity of research protocols, ethical standards, and regulatory frameworks. Originating as task-oriented support figures, CRNs have progressively assumed broader responsibilities that include patient advocacy, protocol integrity, ethical vigilance, and interprofessional coordination. By mapping the global literature on CRNs, this review will examine how their role has been defined, implemented, and evaluated over the past three decades. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search covered the peer-reviewed and gray literature from 1990 to 2024 across major databases. Data analysis combined traditional extraction with topic modeling, Multiple Correspondence Analysis, and k-means clustering to identify key themes. Results: From the 128 included studies, four major themes emerged: clinical trial management, role perception and team integration, professional competencies and development, and systemic barriers. Despite formal competency frameworks, CRNs face inconsistencies in role recognition, unstable contracts, and limited career pathways. Emotional strain and professional isolation are recurrent. Over time, their functions have evolved from task execution to broader responsibilities, including advocacy and ethical oversight. However, no studies reported patient-level outcomes, revealing a critical gap in the evidence base. Conclusions: CRNs play a vital but undervalued role in clinical research. Persistent structural challenges hinder their development and visibility. Enhancing institutional support and generating outcome-based evidence are necessary steps toward fully integrating CRNs into research infrastructures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

揭示临床研究护理的专业景观:数据挖掘方法的范围审查。
背景/目的:临床研究护士(crn)已成为全球临床试验实施、协调和监督的关键角色。在过去的三十年中,CRN的角色随着研究方案、伦理标准和监管框架的日益复杂而不断演变。crn最初是作为任务导向的支持人物,逐渐承担了更广泛的责任,包括患者倡导、协议完整性、道德警惕性和跨专业协调。通过绘制关于crn的全球文献,本综述将研究在过去三十年中它们的作用是如何定义、实施和评估的。方法:采用JBI方法学和PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围审查。该研究涵盖了1990年至2024年主要数据库中同行评议的文献和灰色文献。数据分析将传统提取与主题建模、多重对应分析和k-means聚类相结合,识别关键主题。结果:从纳入的128项研究中,出现了四个主要主题:临床试验管理、角色认知和团队整合、专业能力和发展以及系统障碍。尽管有正式的胜任力框架,crn仍面临角色认知不一致、契约不稳定、职业路径有限等问题。情绪紧张和职业孤立是反复出现的。随着时间的推移,他们的职能已经从执行任务演变为更广泛的责任,包括倡导和道德监督。然而,没有研究报告患者水平的结果,这表明证据基础存在严重差距。结论:crn在临床研究中发挥着重要但被低估的作用。持续的结构性挑战阻碍了它们的发展和可见性。加强机构支持和产生基于结果的证据是将crn充分纳入研究基础设施的必要步骤。
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
Nursing Reports
Nursing Reports NURSING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Nursing Reports is an open access, peer-reviewed, online-only journal that aims to influence the art and science of nursing by making rigorously conducted research accessible and understood to the full spectrum of practicing nurses, academics, educators and interested members of the public. The journal represents an exhilarating opportunity to make a unique and significant contribution to nursing and the wider community by addressing topics, theories and issues that concern the whole field of Nursing Science, including research, practice, policy and education. The primary intent of the journal is to present scientifically sound and influential empirical and theoretical studies, critical reviews and open debates to the global community of nurses. Short reports, opinions and insight into the plight of nurses the world-over will provide a voice for those of all cultures, governments and perspectives. The emphasis of Nursing Reports will be on ensuring that the highest quality of evidence and contribution is made available to the greatest number of nurses. Nursing Reports aims to make original, evidence-based, peer-reviewed research available to the global community of nurses and to interested members of the public. In addition, reviews of the literature, open debates on professional issues and short reports from around the world are invited to contribute to our vibrant and dynamic journal. All published work will adhere to the most stringent ethical standards and journalistic principles of fairness, worth and credibility. Our journal publishes Editorials, Original Articles, Review articles, Critical Debates, Short Reports from Around the Globe and Letters to the Editor.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信