Scoping review protocol exploring support mechanisms for nurses aspiring to or undertaking clinical academic development globally
Jennings, C.; Norman, G.; Marshall, M.; Briggs, M.
Show abstract
IntroductionNurse researchers often lack awareness of how to start a clinical academic research career and often lack clear entry routes. This scoping review aims to identify the range and nature of clinical academic opportunities that are available for nurses. This will identify knowledge gaps and provide the basis for future research. Methods and analysisThe review will be conducted using scoping review methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA-SCR guidelines. We will search CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (OVID), AMED (OVID) and ProQuest using a search based on the facets nurse research and clinical academic. Grey literature and a hand search of the reference lists will be conducted for additional publications which meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will include articles with a focus on nurses who are interested in undertaking clinical academic development, or a focus on programmes aimed at supporting clinical academic development for nurses. Following initial screening of titles and abstracts, relevant full text papers will be screened for inclusion. A proportion of all records at each stage will be screened by a second reviewer. We will use a prespecified form to extract data which will be charted and presented in tabular form. Samples of data extraction and charting will be checked by a second reviewer. This will support a narrative summary structured around key identified variables agreed iteratively by the review team. Ethics and disseminationNo ethical or Health Research Authority approval is required to undertake this scoping review. This protocol has been registered with The Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WVDXH). The findings will inform future research exploring the support mechanisms for nurses aspiring to undertake clinical academic development and be disseminated via presentations at national conferences and publications in peer reviewed journals. Article summaryO_ST_ABSStrengths and Limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIThis is the first exploration review of the nature and range of clinical academic opportunities that are available to nurses. C_LIO_LIThe scoping review will be undertaken and reported following established guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility. C_LIO_LIThe identification and synthesis of data will include published articles found on the CINAHL, Medline, AMED and ProQuest databases, grey literature available on relevant organisations and professional bodies, and a hand search of reference lists. C_LIO_LIThe scoping review will be focussed on nurses undertaking clinical academic development programmes, as they are the largest group of registered healthcare professionals and are underrepresented as research leaders. C_LIO_LIDue to limited resources, only a proportion of the screening will be undertaken be 2nd reviewer, and literature not available in English Language will be excluded. We will mitigate these issues by use of additional checks and listing of relevant foreign language studies. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Mapping factors that may influence attrition and retention of midwives: a scoping review protocol 94%
- Redeployment and training of healthcare professionals to Intensive Care during COVID-19: a systemic review 94%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 96%
- Stressors, Manifestations and Course of COVID-19 Related Distress Among Nurses and Midwives in Tasmania 94%
- Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 91%
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK 91%
- Improving the impact of pharmacy interventions in hospitals 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of introducing interprofessional education concepts on students of various healthcare disciplines in the United Arab Emirates 91%
- COVIDReady2 Study Protocol: Cross-sectional Survey of Medical Student Volunteering and Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United Kingdom 90%
- Participant perceptions of disability training for health workers: a qualitative study in Ghana 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.