Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Including systematic reviews in PhD programmes and candidatures in nursing Hobson's choice'?
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health.
2014 (English)In: Nurse Education in Practice, ISSN 1471-5953, E-ISSN 1873-5223, Vol. 14, no 2, 102-105 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

Nowadays, gathering and synthesising evidence, i.e. conducting systematic reviews, is considered an important part of any health service research endeavour. Reviewing the literature, however suggest that it is not yet common that PhD students/doctoral candidates publish systematic reviews or even include a high quality review of the literature as a part of their PhD programme or candidature. Implying that systematic reviewing skills might not be acquired by going through an education on a postgraduate level. Additionally, scholars debating systematic reviews 'to be or not to be' as a part of research training seem to be sparse, especially within the field of nursing. In this issue for debate, we would like to propose that the absence of systematic reviews' in this context might severely hamper the 'up and coming' researchers as well as the research conducted. We envisage that this lack can have a negative impact on international nursing practice, and therefore propose that systematic reviews should be considered, whenever appropriate, as a mandatory part of any PhD programme or candidature. We believe that abilities in systematic reviewing will be a sought after research skills in the near future. Including systematic reviews would promote i) refined, well-grounded adequate research questions, ii) PhDs with broad and elevated methodological skills, iii) an increased level of evidence based nursing praxis. However, to make this a reality, supervisors, PhD students, and candidates would need to understand the value of this kind of research activity. Finally, lobbying University faculty boards and grant providers that are not inclined to view literature reviews as 'proper' research or as an important part of health service research, needs to be put on the agenda. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2014. Vol. 14, no 2, 102-105 p.
Keyword [en]
Meta-analysis; Meta-synthesis; Mixed studies reviews; Nursing; PhD theses; Systematic reviews
National Category
Nursing
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-12441DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2014.01.005ISI: 000349568000002PubMedID: 24480093OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-12441DiVA: diva2:941286
Available from: 2016-06-22 Created: 2016-06-22 Last updated: 2017-03-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Borglin, Gunilla
By organisation
Department of Health
In the same journal
Nurse Education in Practice
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 22 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf