Digital Health Education and Training for Undergraduate and Graduate Nursing Students: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: As technology will continue to play a pivotal role in modern-day health care and given the potential impact on the nursing profession, it is vitally important to examine the types and features of digital health education in nursing so that graduates are better equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills needed to provide safe and quality nursing care and to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving technological revolution. OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to examine and report on available evidence about digital health education and training interventions for nursing students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). A comprehensive search strategy was developed and applied to identified bibliographic databases including MEDLINE (Ovid; 1946 to present), Embase (Ovid; 1974 to present), CINAHL (EBSCOhost; 1936 to present), ERIC (EBSCOhost; 1966 to present), Education Research Complete (EBSCOhost; inception to present), and Scopus (1976 to present). The initial search was conducted on March 3, 2022, and updated searches were completed on January 11, 2023, and October 31, 2023. For gray literature sources, the websites of select professional organizations were searched to identify relevant digital health educational programs or courses available to support the health workforce development. Two reviewers screened and undertook the data extraction process. The review included studies focused on the digital health education of students at the undergraduate or graduate levels or both in a nursing program. Studies that discussed instructional strategies, delivery processes, pedagogical theory and frameworks, and evaluation strategies for digital health education; applied quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods; and were descriptive or discussion papers, with the exception of review studies, were included. Opinion pieces, editorials, and conference proceedings were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 100 records were included in this review. Of these, 94 records were identified from database searches, and 6 sources were identified from the gray literature. Despite improvements, there are significant gaps and limitations in the scope of digital health education at the undergraduate and graduate levels, consequently posing challenges for nursing students to develop competencies needed in modern-day nursing practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to expand the understanding of digital health in the context of nursing education and practice and to better articulate its scope in nursing curricula and enforce its application across professional nursing practice roles at all levels and career trajectories. Further research is also needed to examine the impact of digital health education on improving patient outcomes, the quality of nursing care, and professional nursing role advancement. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00266.
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 | 0,018 | 0,085 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,022 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».