Exploring conceptual and theoretical frameworks for Nurse Practitioner Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The use of conceptual and theoretical frameworks to organize graduate level curriculum in the preparation of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) is necessary to preserve nursing focus. There is a tendency to conceptualize the learning in these programs as related to skills-based tasks and competencies alone. An assessment of available conceptual/theoretical frameworks relevant to curriculum organization and delivery was required. Objective: The specific review question was: What conceptual and/or theoretical frameworks are available that are relevant to the structuring of NP education? Methods: The following databases and search engines were included: CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Education Source and Google Scholar. The search for unpublished works was conducted in Dissertation Abstracts, Google Scholar and Embase Conference Proceedings. Documents meeting inclusion criteria were examined for relevance using the Ontario NP curriculum document. Data were extracted using a form developed for this purpose and organized into categories. Results: 2517 citations were located. Ten papers and two jurisdictional documents were ultimately included. Many of the documents purporting to describe frameworks were actually lists of competencies or course and were not in accord with our conceptual definition. The largest number of documents was categorized as describing andragogical frameworks (n = 6). Discussion: The important distinction between competency lists and true frameworks is the nature of lists to be variable/factor relationships, not conceptual relationships. It has been suggested that conceptual frameworks provide understanding rather than explanations and are open to reconceptualization that is appropriate a phenomenon's evolution. Conclusion: A capability-related framework can be used for curricular organization, design and delivery that fosters experiential learning, co-learning with educators, and acknowledges that entry to practice is more than competency. This approach is more than simply learning knowledge and skills and encourages problem solving while recognizing the contextual nature of health and the unpredictable and changing environments in which care is provided.
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 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 | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».