MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of continuing education programmes in nursing: literature review

2006· review· en· W2012548484 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLContinuing educationCompetence (human resources)NursingNurse educationContinuing professional developmentMedicineLifelong learningProfessional developmentHealth careMEDLINEMedical educationPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The aim of this paper is to review the literature on what facilitates or inhibits continuing education in nursing and to identify ways to make continuing education more effective. BACKGROUND: [corrected] Healthcare professionals have always been encouraged to update their knowledge and maintain clinical competence. The rapid changes currently taking place within healthcare systems have increased the pressure from direct care providers, professional bodies and the general public for nurses to engage in continuing education programmes. Despite a growing body of empirical research on this topic, the effectiveness and impact of continuing education remains underexplored. METHOD: A literature search was conducted in January 2005 using CINAHL, Medline, the Cochrane databases and the Internet. Keywords used were: 'continuing education', 'professional development', 'viability of continuing education/professional development programmes', 'evaluation of continuing education/professional development programmes' and 'effectiveness of continuing education/professional development programmes'. No date restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: Factors that facilitate the implementation of continuing education in nursing arise from individual, professional and organizational perspectives. While the philosophy behind continuing education is to encourage nurses to become lifelong learners, the learning method chosen for such programmes is often didactic in nature, as opposed to encouraging nurses to take initiative and direct their own learning. Continuing education is intended to ensure healthcare practitioners' knowledge is current, but it is difficult to determine if those who attend these courses are implementing what they have learnt. CONCLUSION: To make continuing education programmes more effective, nurses need to have a more participatory role in their learning. A concerted effort should be made to make continuing education attainable and realistic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it