MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138283432 · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104860

Interventions to support graduate nurse transition to practice and associated outcomes: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3138283432 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Kenny, Virginia Dickson‐Swift, Lisa McKenna, Martin Charette, Kathy L. Rush, Gemma Stacey, Angela Darvill, Jacqueline Leigh, Robert L. Burton, Craig Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Education Today · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionCritical appraisalMEDLINESystematic reviewNursingInclusion (mineral)Qualitative researchMedicineHealth carePsychologyMedical educationFamily medicineAlternative medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this mixed methods systematic review was to: i) document the interventions that support and facilitate graduate nurse transition from university to practice in a diversity of healthcare settings and ii) to identify outcomes from graduate nurse transition interventions for the graduate, patient or client, and health service. DESIGN: This mixed methods systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria. DATA SOURCES: Primary research studies located in Medline, EmBase, CINAHL, Prospero, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and Web of Science (Social Science Citation Index). All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria. REVIEW METHODS: Using a comprehensive search strategy, retrieved articles were screened by two reviewers at the title, abstract, and full-text stage. Reviewer disagreements were discussed until consensus was achieved. The well-validated Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess quality of the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. RESULTS: A total of 130 studies were included as the review dataset. There was a myriad of terms used to describe transition interventions, and programme length and settings varied. The content of transition interventions was not well defined, and there was a lack of studies outside acute hospital settings. Data collection methods varied widely. The majority of authors reported outcomes for the graduate or the graduate and service, with only one reporting outcomes for the patient or client. There was a significant variation in quality across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review addresses a significant gap in the literature by documenting transition interventions in a diversity of health settings and outcomes from these interventions. Interest in transition to practice continues to rise, but there is an urgent need to conduct well designed, robust, and larger-scale studies at the national and transnational levels.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations70
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNurse Education TodaySame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207