提高临床护理实习生核心能力的干预措施：系统综述。

IF 3.6 2区医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Nurse Education Today Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106536

Ke Liu , Shuyi Wang , Minhui Liu , Siyuan Tang , Qirong Chen

{"title":"提高临床护理实习生核心能力的干预措施：系统综述。","authors":"Ke Liu , Shuyi Wang , Minhui Liu , Siyuan Tang , Qirong Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Aim</div><div>This systematic review aimed to identify intervention studies on core competencies of clinical nursing preceptors, evaluate their quality using quantitative indicators, and summarize the effectiveness of the intervention programs and limitations of included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Between May 1, 2024 and May 30, 2024, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and ProQuest (Health & Medical Collection) to get relevant literature published between January 2010 and May 2024. The main search concepts were core competence; preceptor; intervention; nurse. References in all eligible literature were also searched to prevent omissions.</div></div><div><h3>Review methods</h3><div>Articles were screened and then evaluated by two researchers independently. The narrative table was used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies and the details of interventions. The modified Educational Interventions Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of studies; the Kirkpatrick Model was used to assess the interventions. The content analysis method was used to synthesize data.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 27 articles were included in this review. Six studies were rated as high quality. The remaining 21 studies were all rated as moderate quality and no studies were rated as low quality. Eight studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 1, all the studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 2, six studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 3, Only one study achieved the Kirkpatrick level 4.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Interventions that covered key content themes, used face-to-face training method, and had shorter intervals may be more effective. Future studies could be improved by involving more representative samples, developing interventions based on theories, evaluating the long-term effects of the interventions. This review provided implications for developing more effective and sustainable educational programs for clinical nursing preceptors.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54704,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Education Today","volume":"146 ","pages":"Article 106536"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to enhance the core competencies of clinical nursing preceptors: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Ke Liu , Shuyi Wang , Minhui Liu , Siyuan Tang , Qirong Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106536\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Aim</div><div>This systematic review aimed to identify intervention studies on core competencies of clinical nursing preceptors, evaluate their quality using quantitative indicators, and summarize the effectiveness of the intervention programs and limitations of included studies.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Between May 1, 2024 and May 30, 2024, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and ProQuest (Health & Medical Collection) to get relevant literature published between January 2010 and May 2024. The main search concepts were core competence; preceptor; intervention; nurse. References in all eligible literature were also searched to prevent omissions.</div></div><div><h3>Review methods</h3><div>Articles were screened and then evaluated by two researchers independently. The narrative table was used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies and the details of interventions. The modified Educational Interventions Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of studies; the Kirkpatrick Model was used to assess the interventions. The content analysis method was used to synthesize data.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 27 articles were included in this review. Six studies were rated as high quality. The remaining 21 studies were all rated as moderate quality and no studies were rated as low quality. Eight studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 1, all the studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 2, six studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 3, Only one study achieved the Kirkpatrick level 4.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Interventions that covered key content themes, used face-to-face training method, and had shorter intervals may be more effective. Future studies could be improved by involving more representative samples, developing interventions based on theories, evaluating the long-term effects of the interventions. This review provided implications for developing more effective and sustainable educational programs for clinical nursing preceptors.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nurse Education Today\",\"volume\":\"146 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nurse Education Today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691724004465\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Education Today","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691724004465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本系统综述旨在确定临床护理戒律者核心能力的干预研究，使用定量指标评估其质量，并总结干预项目的有效性和纳入研究的局限性：数据来源：2024 年 5 月 1 日至 2024 年 6 月 30 日期间的数据：在 2024 年 5 月 1 日至 2024 年 5 月 30 日期间，我们检索了 PubMed、Web of Science、CINAHL、Medline、EMBASE 和 ProQuest（健康与医学文献集），以获取 2010 年 1 月至 2024 年 5 月期间发表的相关文献。主要检索概念为核心能力、戒护者、干预、护士。同时还检索了所有符合条件的文献中的参考文献，以防遗漏：文章由两名研究人员独立筛选和评估。叙事表用于总结纳入研究的特点和干预措施的细节。采用修改后的教育干预批判性评估工具评估研究质量；采用柯克帕特里克模型评估干预措施。采用内容分析法对数据进行综合：本综述共收录了 27 篇文章。六项研究被评为高质量。其余 21 项研究均被评为中等质量，没有研究被评为低质量。八项研究达到了 Kirkpatrick 1 级，所有研究达到了 Kirkpatrick 2 级，六项研究达到了 Kirkpatrick 3 级，只有一项研究达到了 Kirkpatrick 4 级：涵盖关键内容主题、采用面对面培训方法和间隔时间较短的干预措施可能更有效。今后的研究可以通过让更具代表性的样本参与、根据理论制定干预措施、评估干预措施的长期效果等方法加以改进。本综述为制定更有效、更可持续的临床护理督导员教育计划提供了启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Interventions to enhance the core competencies of clinical nursing preceptors: A systematic review

Aim

This systematic review aimed to identify intervention studies on core competencies of clinical nursing preceptors, evaluate their quality using quantitative indicators, and summarize the effectiveness of the intervention programs and limitations of included studies.

Design

This review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist.

Data sources

Between May 1, 2024 and May 30, 2024, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE and ProQuest (Health & Medical Collection) to get relevant literature published between January 2010 and May 2024. The main search concepts were core competence; preceptor; intervention; nurse. References in all eligible literature were also searched to prevent omissions.

Review methods

Articles were screened and then evaluated by two researchers independently. The narrative table was used to summarize the characteristics of the included studies and the details of interventions. The modified Educational Interventions Critical Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the quality of studies; the Kirkpatrick Model was used to assess the interventions. The content analysis method was used to synthesize data.

Results

A total of 27 articles were included in this review. Six studies were rated as high quality. The remaining 21 studies were all rated as moderate quality and no studies were rated as low quality. Eight studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 1, all the studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 2, six studies achieved the Kirkpatrick level 3, Only one study achieved the Kirkpatrick level 4.

Conclusions

Interventions that covered key content themes, used face-to-face training method, and had shorter intervals may be more effective. Future studies could be improved by involving more representative samples, developing interventions based on theories, evaluating the long-term effects of the interventions. This review provided implications for developing more effective and sustainable educational programs for clinical nursing preceptors.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Nurse Education Today 医学-护理

CiteScore

6.90

自引率

12.80%

发文量

349

审稿时长

58 days

期刊介绍： Nurse Education Today is the leading international journal providing a forum for the publication of high quality original research, review and debate in the discussion of nursing, midwifery and interprofessional health care education, publishing papers which contribute to the advancement of educational theory and pedagogy that support the evidence-based practice for educationalists worldwide. The journal stimulates and values critical scholarly debate on issues that have strategic relevance for leaders of health care education. The journal publishes the highest quality scholarly contributions reflecting the diversity of people, health and education systems worldwide, by publishing research that employs rigorous methodology as well as by publishing papers that highlight the theoretical underpinnings of education and systems globally. The journal will publish papers that show depth, rigour, originality and high standards of presentation, in particular, work that is original, analytical and constructively critical of both previous work and current initiatives. Authors are invited to submit original research, systematic and scholarly reviews, and critical papers which will stimulate debate on research, policy, theory or philosophy of nursing and related health care education, and which will meet and develop the journal''s high academic and ethical standards.