Stakeholder Engagement in Nursing Curriculum Development and Renewal Initiatives: A Review of the Literature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stakeholder engagement remains a critical endeavour in nursing curriculum development and renewal. Engaging stakeholders such as patients and families, students, and frontline clinicians in the development process is necessary to ensure that curricula meet the current needs of patients and are responsive to a changing health care environment. To inform strategies for effective stakeholder engagement a literature review was conducted to identify: a) common roles and functions of stakeholders across nursing curricular projects, and b) factors that promote positive stakeholder engagement in nursing curriculum development or renewal. Twelve papers were included in this review. Texts were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Common roles and functions were classified according to formalized leadership roles or on an informal, as needed basis, with varying levels of engagement. Four themes emerged pertaining to factors that promote positive stakeholder engagement: positive leadership, empowerment, sense of ownership, and a culture of equality. Optimizing stakeholder contributions to nursing curricular projects can be fostered by an understanding of strategies to positively engage these partners and identifying productive and meaningful stakeholder roles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it