Key considerations when developing academic writing support for nursing and midwifery doctoral students: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Academic writing is essential to achieve success for doctoral students and is often linked to their academic identity, which could provoke negative emotions leading to the risk of burnout and dropping out of their studies. Although academic writing is a substantial part of doctoral students' learning journey, there are no existing recommendations to guide the provision of effective support addressing nursing and midwifery doctoral students' needs in academic writing. This review aims to identify the key considerations that could facilitate education facilities and educators to provide effective support for academic writing among nursing and midwifery doctoral students, fostering a supportive environment for guidance and development. DESIGN: The review team was co-led by two doctoral students and two academics with all the team members being doctoral students at the School of Nursing and Midwifery in a research-intensive university. Seven databases were searched in February 2022 with an updated search conducted in July 2023. This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping reviews: PRISMA for Scoping Review Checklist and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 11 papers were included. Six key considerations for developing effective academic writing support were identified including modes of delivery; barriers to writing; accountability and productivity; building group identity, collegiality and a sense of community; peer review, and behavioural change in writing practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted that both face-to-face and online writing support groups enhance doctoral students' motivation and confidence in writing. The opportunity of active engagement, sharing writing commitments and short bursts of writing practice is pivotal in promoting doctoral students' writing productivity and satisfaction resulting in a higher on-time completion rate. Future studies should focus on the nursing and midwifery students' educational needs in academic writing.
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 | 0.122 | 0.324 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".