Global perspectives on nursing leadership: Lessons learned from an international nursing and health care leadership development program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Nurses and health care professionals who practice in the global health arena must develop the leadership skills to lead interprofessional teams that direct individual and population-based healthcare, shape health policy, and develop responses to a changing environmental, socioeconomic, and technological landscape. Programs aimed at developing these skills including nurses and health professionals from low and middle resource nations are limited. Since 2008, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center on International Nursing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) has offered a biennial International Nursing and Healthcare Leadership Development Program composed of: a) didactic classes; b) mentorship/coaching; c) health/service organization site visits; and d) cultural enrichment. This paper presents program evaluation data from international participants from South America and Africa (n = 69), UAB students (n = 13), faculty (n = 32), and mentors/coaches (n = 45) from programs held from 2008-2012. Implications for future programs aimed at international nursing and healthcare leadership skill development are discussed. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing investigator-designed surveys at the end of each program was used to collect quantitative and qualitative evaluation data. Questions that guided the program evaluation were: 1) What were participants’ perceptions about the extent to which objectives of the leadership classes and overall program were achieved?; 2) What were participants’ and faculty mentor/coaches’ evaluation of the mentoring/coaching component of the program?; and 3) What were participants’ and faculty mentor/coaches’ perceptions of program strengths, weaknesses, and need for change? Themes from narrative comments were identified using content analysis procedures and the NVivo9© qualitative data analysis software package. Results: Mean scores on all of the quantitative evaluation items ranged from 3.71-4.9 out of 5 possible points indicating very positive perceptions of the program and agreement that objectives had been achieved. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that participants were more satisfied with the mentoring/coaching component of the program than were faculty. The primary challenges identified were time limitations and communication difficulties that included both language and information technology barriers. Participants and faculty agreed that program strengths included program content and organization, the ability for cross-cultural interaction with peers, formulation of personal leadership development plans, and mentor/coach engagement. Suggestions for program improvement were aimed at providing unstructured time to allow participants to explore their host surroundings, providing sufficient breaks between classes and activities, inclusion of problem-based learning such as case study analysis, and more time allotted to mentor/coach engagement. Conclusion: The program has been successful in preparing future leaders in nursing and other health-related disciplines to better meet global health needs. The desire of program participants for more time to engage in a mentoring/coaching relationship and free time to experience the host country surroundings suggests that program length is an important influence in participant satisfaction. Even when increased costs are taken into consideration, a 3-week program duration may be more desirable than a 2-week duration. Because communication barriers contributed to participant and faculty dissatisfaction, care should be taken to ensure a basic level of English fluency for all participants if simultaneous translations services aren’t offered is recommended.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».