An analysis of the evolution of mentorship in nursing
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, this paper documents an analysis of mentorship models within the profession of nursing from the 1940s onward. From this analysis, the author was able to categorize the evolution of mentorship models within nursing. Second, this paper identifies four specific contemporary challenges within nursing which relate directly to mentorship. Last, this paper attempts to place a nursing student peer mentorship model in context to best understand how it can benefit the profession of nursing and help address the four identified contemporary challenges within nursing. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical, philosophical, and research roots that have shaped and informed mentorship models in nursing are examined. The strengths and limitations of nursing mentorship models are analyzed in relation to contemporary challenges in nursing education and practice with a focus on undergraduate peer mentorship. This was achieved through a comprehensive literature review that examined mentorship in nursing from approximately 1940 to the present. Findings Since Nightingale’s time, five specific mentoring models have been created and adapted within the nursing profession. The five mentorship models identified within this paper are most prevalent within current and previous nursing mentorship literature and demonstrate how models within nursing have evolved from those positing a relatively paternalistic relationship to those favoring more collaborative and reciprocal relations between mentor and mentee. Further, it is argued in this paper that a nursing student peer mentorship model can assist in addressing four challenges which currently face the profession of nursing. These four challenges (which are prevalent in nursing literature) are mentoring as a professional responsibility, projected nursing shortages, communication in nursing, and the development of critical thinking skills. Research limitations/implications A limitation of this paper includes the fact that, despite the many challenges facing the profession of nursing today, this paper focuses on only four identified challenges. As it is impossible for one paper to address all of the contemporary challenges which face nursing today, as articulated below, this paper addresses four identified challenges because they relate to mentorship, nursing education, and nursing practice. Practical implications Providing opportunities for nursing students to participate in a peer mentoring relationship assists future nurses and the profession as a whole by generating tangible benefits. These benefits include an exposure to theories and models of mentorship and skills to help them fulfill their future professional responsibility of mentoring, development of relationships and skills that can increase both nurse and student retention, and improved communication and critical thinking skills. Last, this study can help nursing schools to identify and work with theories and models of mentorship that will improve their ability to stimulate critical thinking among their students. Originality/value This paper fills a gap in the literature by providing an analysis of the theoretical, philosophical, and research roots that have shaped and informed mentorship models in nursing from the 1940s onward. This analysis suggests that student peer mentorship may be the most effective model to address these four challenges in nursing: mentoring as a professional responsibility, projected nursing shortages, communication in nursing, and the development of critical thinking skills. This paper has the potential to make a timely contribution to the global debate regarding mentoring across the healthcare professions.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle