MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of continuing education programmes in nursing: literature review

2006· review· en· W2012548484 on OpenAlexaff
Odette Griscti, John Jacono

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations239
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207