Cargando…
Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25875307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0007-5 |
_version_ | 1782359243704238080 |
---|---|
author | Nowell, Lorelli White, Deborah E Mrklas, Kelly Norris, Jill M |
author_facet | Nowell, Lorelli White, Deborah E Mrklas, Kelly Norris, Jill M |
author_sort | Nowell, Lorelli |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Mentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. METHODS: Studies examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. Mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutional outcomes will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies will be eligible for inclusion, without restrictions on publication status, year of publication, or language. We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data permit. DISCUSSION: This study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing science. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4342164 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43421642015-02-27 Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol Nowell, Lorelli White, Deborah E Mrklas, Kelly Norris, Jill M Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Mentorship is perceived as vital to attracting, training, and retaining nursing faculty members and to maintaining high-quality education programs. While there is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in academic medicine, the extant state of the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia has not been established. We describe a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review to critically appraise the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. METHODS: Studies examining the effectiveness of mentorship interventions with nursing faculty who teach in registered nursing education programs will be included. Mentee, mentor, and nursing education institutional outcomes will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies will be eligible for inclusion, without restrictions on publication status, year of publication, or language. We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC) and gray literature (for example, conference proceedings, key journals, relevant organizational websites) for relevant citations. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review the studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis (qualitative) and meta-analysis (quantitative), should the data permit. DISCUSSION: This study is the first systematic review of existing global evidence for mentorship in nursing academia. It will help identify key evidence gaps and inform the development and implementation of mentorship interventions. The mentorship outcomes that result from this review could be used to guide the practice of mentorship to increase positive outcomes for nursing faculty and the students they teach and ultimately effect improvements for the patients they care for. This review will also identify key considerations for future research on mentorship in nursing academia and the enhancement of nursing science. BioMed Central 2015-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4342164/ /pubmed/25875307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0007-5 Text en © Nowell et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Protocol Nowell, Lorelli White, Deborah E Mrklas, Kelly Norris, Jill M Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title | Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title_full | Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title_fullStr | Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title_short | Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
title_sort | mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25875307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0007-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nowelllorelli mentorshipinnursingacademiaasystematicreviewprotocol AT whitedeborahe mentorshipinnursingacademiaasystematicreviewprotocol AT mrklaskelly mentorshipinnursingacademiaasystematicreviewprotocol AT norrisjillm mentorshipinnursingacademiaasystematicreviewprotocol |