Baccalaureate Nursing Education Related to Ageing and the Care of Older People: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although educators are working to improve gerontological content in baccalaureate nursing programmes to keep pace with changing population demographics, it is unclear what types of educational interventions are occurring. AIM: The aim of this scoping review was to map baccalaureate nursing educational interventions related to ageing and the care of older people. METHODS: A search was conducted in six databases. Databases searched were CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Scopus, Education Database and Education Research Complete for articles published between January 2013 and June 2023. Sixty-five articles met all inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on year, country, characteristics of interventions, methodological approach, evaluation, analysis and outcomes. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess quality. Analysis included descriptive frequencies and directed content analysis. RESULTS: We examined the patterns of publication, research methodologies, quality, education types and types of outcomes used. We noted an increase in research in the past 10 years examining gerontological education and an increase in the use of simulation, e-learning and community clinical placements. Most studies were descriptive, with only four randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSION: This review found improvement in the overall quality of reporting. Studies examining knowledge and skill have increased. There is heterogeneity in tools used to evaluate quantitative outcomes, and an increase in e-learning, simulation and clinical placements in community settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Stronger measures are warranted to ensure gerontological education is included throughout nursing education programmes. Education innovations must be spread to improve preparation of nursing graduates.
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 | 0.014 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".