MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2559932864 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003188

Effectiveness and experience of arts-based pedagogy among undergraduate nursing students: a mixed methods systematic review

2016· review· en· W2559932864 sur OpenAlexaff
Kendra L. Rieger, Wanda M. Chernomas, Diana E. McMillan, Francine Morin, Lisa Demczuk

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2016
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueNursing education and management
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyNurse educationEmpathyNursingMedical educationPedagogyMedicineSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To develop well rounded professional nurses, educators need diverse pedagogical approaches. There is growing interest in arts-based pedagogy (ABP) as the arts can facilitate reflection, create meaning and engage healthcare students. However, the emerging body of research about ABP needs to be systematically examined. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of ABP in enhancing competencies and learning behaviors in undergraduate nursing education and to explore nursing students' experiences with art-based pedagogy. INCLUSION CRITERIA TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: The review considered studies that included participants who are undergraduate nursing students. TYPES OF INTERVENTION(S)/PHENOMENA OF INTEREST: The qualitative (QL) component considered studies investigating nursing students' experiences of ABP, and the quantitative (QN) component considered studies evaluating the effectiveness of ABP in undergraduate nursing education. TYPES OF STUDIES: The QL component considered QL studies including designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research. The QN component considered studies that examined the effectiveness of ABP including designs such as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, analytical cross-sectional studies, case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross-sectional studies. OUTCOMES: The following QN outcomes of ABP were assessed: knowledge acquisition, level of empathy, attitudes toward others, emotional states, reflective practice, self-transcendence, cognitive/ethical maturity, learning behaviors and students' perspectives of ABP. SEARCH STRATEGY: An extensive three-step search strategy was conducted for primary research studies published between January 1, 1994 and April 7, 2015. The strategy included searching CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Art Full Text, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, A&I, and gray literature. Only studies published in English were included. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Two reviewers assessed all studies for methodological quality using appropriate critical appraisal checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) or the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI). DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from included articles using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-QARI or JBI-MAStARI. DATA SYNTHESIS: Qualitative studies were pooled through a meta-synthesis. Data from the QN studies were combined using a narrative synthesis as a meta-analysis was not possible. The researchers used a segregated mixed methods approach to integrate the QL and QN components. RESULTS: Twenty-one QL studies of high methodological quality were included. The two synthesized findings revealed that art forms could create meaning and inspire learning in undergraduate nursing education and that ABP can develop important learner outcomes/competencies for professional nursing. These synthesized findings received a moderate ConQual rating. Fifteen experimental/quasi-experimental studies of moderate methodological quality were included. The narrative synthesis suggested that ABP improved nursing students' knowledge acquisition, level of empathy, attitude toward others, emotional states, level of reflective practice, learning behaviors and aspects of cognitive/ethical maturity. In five cross-sectional studies, the majority of students had a positive perspective of ABP. When the QL and QN findings were interpreted as a whole, ABP appeared to facilitate learning in the cognitive and affective domains and may be especially useful in addressing the affective domain. CONCLUSION: Nurse educators should consider using ABP as students found that this approach offered a meaningful way of learning and resulted in the development of important competencies for professional nursing. The QN studies provide a very low level of evidence that ABP improved students' knowledge acquisition, level of empathy, attitude toward others, emotional states, level of reflective practice, learning behaviors and aspects of cognitive/ethical maturity. Although the QN findings can inform future research, the evidence is not robust enough to demonstrate improved outcomes.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,021
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,112

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0210,067
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,007
Bibliométrie0,0160,013
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,100
Tête enseignante GPT0,542
Écart entre enseignants0,442 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations76
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetNursing education and managementTravaux en français237 207