Baccalaureate Nursing Education Related to Aging and the Care of Older People: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although educators are working to improve gerontological content in baccalaureate nursing programs to keep pace with changing population demographics, it is unclear what types of education are occurring. The most recent scoping review conducted in 2015 by Koskinen et al. found that most studies related to gerontological content in nursing programs were of moderate quality and there were gaps in what was reported. The authors found that most research focused on students’ attitudes toward older people, and none tested e-learning and online solutions. Aim: The aim of this scoping review was to map baccalaureate nursing education research related to aging and the care of older people. Method: A search was conducted in 6 databases, resulting in 1465 unique articles published between 2013 and 2023. Standardized criteria were used to screen the records, and 65 articles met all inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were baccalaureate nursing education studies, published in English between January 2013 to June 2023. Data were extracted on year, country, characteristics of interventions, methodological approach, evaluation methods, analysis, and types of outcomes. Since Koskinen et al. (2015) suggested the poor to moderate quality of reported research, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess each article’s quality in this review. Two types of analysis were applied – descriptive frequencies and directed content analysis. Results: 16 countries were represented, with most studies from the USA (45%) followed by Canada (12%), Spain (9%) and Australia (8%). 33 were quantitative studies, 20 were qualitative, and 13 utilized mixed methods. Included articles focused on delivery of gerontological content, and delivery methods such as simulation, asynchronous online learning modules, and clinical placements. Various standardized tools were utilized to measure quantitative outcomes, with the most common being Kogan’s Attitudes toward Old People Scale, Jefferson Scale of Empathy, and Facts of Aging Quiz. Participants’ attitude, knowledge, and skill were measured. 45 articles measured attitude, 41 measured knowledge and 21 measured skills. 35 articles measured different combinations of all three. Conclusion: This review found improvement in the overall quality of reporting in studies, compared to Koskinen et al. (2015) findings. Although many studies focused on student nurses’ attitudes toward older people, the numbers of studies examining knowledge and skill have increased. There is heterogeneity in tools used to evaluate quantitative outcomes. Notably, there is an increase in use of e-learning solutions, and simulation, as well as proliferation of clinical placements, mostly in gerontological community settings. Future research should include systematic reviews to assess the impact of individual educational initiatives.
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 | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".