MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3041676959 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00334

Teaching strategies and activities to enhance students’ clinical placement in residential aged care facilities: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3041676959 sur OpenAlexaff
Rose McCloskey, Lisa Keeping‐Burke, Cindy Donovan, Jessica Eustace‐Cook, Richelle Witherspoon, Nicholas Lignos

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Établissements canadiensSaint John Regional HospitalUniversity of New Brunswick
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedical educationGerontologyMedicinePsychologyNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review was to examine teaching strategies and activities used in nursing students' clinical placement in residential aged care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Population aging necessitates that nursing curricula ensure student interest and commitment to working with older adults. While searching for suitable clinical placements that provide students with opportunities to care for older adults, nursing programs have turned to residential aged care facilities. Studies show that carefully planned placement in these environments supports students' needs and offers rich learning possibilities. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review examined intentional teaching strategies and activities used during student placement in residential aged care facilities, and considered research and textual papers on the subject. The strategies and activities included those that took place prior to, during, or after the experience. METHODS: The review included qualitative and quantitative research reports as well as text and opinion papers. Only research reports and papers published in English from 1992 to August 2019 were included. The databases searched were: CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), ERIC (EBSCO), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google (with advanced search strategies). Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion while a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. A table was developed for data extraction to record data relating to the review objective. Specific data extracted included the details on research design, geographical location, year of publication, description of the teaching strategy or activity. RESULTS: Of the 84 research reports and papers that were eligible for full-text review, only 25 (30%) were included in the final set. Sixteen papers were research reports including a variety of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method designs. The remaining nine were textual papers and included frameworks, descriptions, and evaluations of a teaching strategy or activity. Most research reports and papers identified more than one strategy and/or activity used concurrently. The use of care staff as student mentors and facility orientation for students were the two most common strategies and activities reported. CONCLUSION: A range of teaching approaches during clinical placements in residential aged care facilities was revealed. These approaches targeted students, staff of aged care facilities, and nursing faculty. Collaborative efforts between aged care facilities and educational institutions allowed for the pooling of resources and the delivery of teaching approaches to students and the engagement of care staff. Many of the approaches were co-designed by educational programs and residential aged care facilities. The number of approaches that used more than one teaching strategy and/or activity reflects an appreciation for the importance of student placements and the complexities of aged care facilities. A lack of longitudinal or evaluative research highlights a gap in the literature. There is a need for further work to understand and evaluate the long-term effects and benefits of teaching strategies and activities used to enhance students' clinical placements in resident aged care facilities.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,558
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,107
Tête enseignante GPT0,541
Écart entre enseignants0,434 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations5
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesTravaux en français237 207