MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226157097 · doi:10.2196/37380

Technology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4226157097 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingFacilitatorNurse educationThematic analysisPsychologySystematic reviewProcess (computing)Critical appraisalNursingMedical educationMedicineMEDLINEComputer scienceQualitative researchPedagogySociologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nursing education has increasingly focused on critical thinking among nursing students, as critical thinking is a desired outcome of nursing education. Particular attention is given to the potential of technological tools in guiding nursing students to stimulate the development of critical thinking; however, the general landscape, facilitators, and challenges of these guidance models remain unexplored, and no previous mixed methods systematic review on the subject has been identified. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize existing evidence on technology-supported guidance models used in nursing education to stimulate the development of critical thinking in nursing students in clinical practice. METHODS: This mixed methods systematic review adopted a convergent, integrated design to facilitate thematic synthesis. This study followed the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 3 analytical themes: learning processes implemented to stimulate critical thinking, organization of the learning process to stimulate critical thinking, and factors influencing the perception of the learning process. We also identified 4 guidance models, all based on facilitator or preceptorship models using tailored instructional or learning strategies and one or several technological tools that were either generic or custom-made for specific outcomes. The main facilitators of these technology-supported guidance models were nurse educators or nurse preceptors, and the main challenges in using technology-supported guidance models were the stress associated with technical difficulties or increased cognitive load. CONCLUSIONS: Although we were able to identify 4 technology-supported guidance models, our results indicate a research gap regarding the use of these models in nursing education, with the specific aim of stimulating the development of critical thinking. Both nurse preceptors and nurse educators play a crucial role in the development of critical thinking among nursing students, and technology is essential for such development. However, technology-supported guidance models should be supervised to mitigate the associated stress. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25126.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.364 · 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