Global perspectives on nursing leadership: Lessons learned from an international nursing and health care leadership development program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nurses and health care professionals who practice in the global health arena must develop the leadership skills to lead interprofessional teams that direct individual and population-based healthcare, shape health policy, and develop responses to a changing environmental, socioeconomic, and technological landscape. Programs aimed at developing these skills including nurses and health professionals from low and middle resource nations are limited. Since 2008, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center on International Nursing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) has offered a biennial International Nursing and Healthcare Leadership Development Program composed of: a) didactic classes; b) mentorship/coaching; c) health/service organization site visits; and d) cultural enrichment. This paper presents program evaluation data from international participants from South America and Africa (n = 69), UAB students (n = 13), faculty (n = 32), and mentors/coaches (n = 45) from programs held from 2008-2012. Implications for future programs aimed at international nursing and healthcare leadership skill development are discussed. Methods: A mixed methods approach employing investigator-designed surveys at the end of each program was used to collect quantitative and qualitative evaluation data. Questions that guided the program evaluation were: 1) What were participants’ perceptions about the extent to which objectives of the leadership classes and overall program were achieved?; 2) What were participants’ and faculty mentor/coaches’ evaluation of the mentoring/coaching component of the program?; and 3) What were participants’ and faculty mentor/coaches’ perceptions of program strengths, weaknesses, and need for change? Themes from narrative comments were identified using content analysis procedures and the NVivo9© qualitative data analysis software package. Results: Mean scores on all of the quantitative evaluation items ranged from 3.71-4.9 out of 5 possible points indicating very positive perceptions of the program and agreement that objectives had been achieved. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that participants were more satisfied with the mentoring/coaching component of the program than were faculty. The primary challenges identified were time limitations and communication difficulties that included both language and information technology barriers. Participants and faculty agreed that program strengths included program content and organization, the ability for cross-cultural interaction with peers, formulation of personal leadership development plans, and mentor/coach engagement. Suggestions for program improvement were aimed at providing unstructured time to allow participants to explore their host surroundings, providing sufficient breaks between classes and activities, inclusion of problem-based learning such as case study analysis, and more time allotted to mentor/coach engagement. Conclusion: The program has been successful in preparing future leaders in nursing and other health-related disciplines to better meet global health needs. The desire of program participants for more time to engage in a mentoring/coaching relationship and free time to experience the host country surroundings suggests that program length is an important influence in participant satisfaction. Even when increased costs are taken into consideration, a 3-week program duration may be more desirable than a 2-week duration. Because communication barriers contributed to participant and faculty dissatisfaction, care should be taken to ensure a basic level of English fluency for all participants if simultaneous translations services aren’t offered is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".