Dataset Information

Defining the role of individuals prepared as a doctor of nurse practice in symptoms science research.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs have grown exponentially for the last 10 years across the United States. However, the intra-professional collaboration among DNP and PhD scholars is not clearly demonstrated in the literature as it relates to frequency, training models, and the outcomes of these collaborations on translation. The purposes of this paper are to: (1) examine the role for DNP nurses in symptom science research and (2) describe training models to cultivate the PhD-DNP collaboration to strengthen the translation of discoveries from nursing research, to facilitate implementation of discoveries, and to improve clinical practice of nurses.

Methods

A targeted review of the literature was conducted to identify, (1) the role of the DNP, (2) examples of PhD-DNP collaborations, (3) training models that support collaborations, and (4) the outcomes of these intra-professional collaborations.

Results

Two articles reported on PhD-DNP collaboration within a university setting; however, they did not address how the partnership was modeled. One additional article described an academic-hospital partnership model aimed at MSN-prepared advanced practice nurses (APRN) by which outcomes were measured. No examples were found outside of academic settings. The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) has established the Symptom Science Center (SSC) with an interest in training the next generation of symptom scientists. By developing a training curriculum through the NINR SSC, DNP-prepared students and practitioners can be exposed to the research enterprise and potentially develop early partnerships with PhD-prepared students and scholars that lead to research translation.

Conclusion

The NINR Department of Intramural Research (DIR) and National Institutes of Health Clinical Center are dedicated to building stronger ties between PhD- and DNP-prepared scientists. The SSC can serve as an optimal platform to promote the collaboration of PhD and DNP nurses to advance symptom science translation.

Clinical relevance

Nurses have a remarkable role in early detection of disease progression. Training opportunities to cultivate the PhD-DNP collaboration have significant relevance for expediting the translation of nursing science to nursing practice.

SUBMITTER: Graves LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8410634 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate whether the CanMEDS-based International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists' Standards could adequately define the scope of practice and reliably be used to train and evaluate Swiss nurse anesthetists (NAs).BackgroundAlthough nurse anesthetists represent a majority of the global workforce in anesthesia, policies that define the scope of practice are frequently non-existent. In low- and middle-income countries, the lack of anesthesia providers with adequate training is a major challenge.IntroductionDespite stringent training requirements, the scope of practice of Swiss nurse anesthetists is actually not defined. Therefore, we surveyed and assessed whether nurse anesthetists felt that the professional competencies outlined in this framework were aligned with their clinical practice.MethodsA cross-sectional survey investigated Swiss nurse anesthetists' relevance ratings of 76 competencies of the International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists according to their professional practice. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were used to determine the internal consistency of the competencies, as well as factor analyses to assess construct validity of these competencies integrated into the CanMEDS roles model.ResultsParticipants rated the Standards overall as very relevant with high reliability. Factor analyses provided evidence of construct validity of these.DiscussionThe International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists' Standards of Practice provide a highly relevant framework and a valuable set of competencies for the scope of practice of Swiss nurse anesthetists, which enabled translation from global guides to local national standards.Conclusion and implication for nursing and health policyAdopted by low- and middle-income countries or countries where national standards are non-existent, this survey could introduce national and local policies at minimally acceptable standards of care for nurse anesthetists worldwide. The above standards have the potential to align education, outcomes and assessment of nurse anesthetists with the needs of national healthcare systems.

Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

Project description:When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.

Project description:BackgroundFunding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.MethodsWe selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies' websites.ResultsMost funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.

Project description:We propose that common elements approaches can advance implementation research and practice and facilitate pragmatic use of intervention and implementation evidence. Common elements are practices or processes frequently shared by interventions or implementations. Traditional common elements methodologies use synthesis, distillation, and statistics to describe and evaluate the merit of common ingredients in effective interventions. Recent developments include identifying and testing common configurations of elements, processes, and context variables across the literature of effective interventions and implementations. While common elements thinking has grown popular in intervention science, it has rarely been utilized in implementation science, and specifically, combined with the intervention literature. The goals of this conceptual methodology paper are to (1) provide an overview of the common elements concept and how it may advance implementation research and usability for practice, (2) give a step-by-step guide to systematic common elements reviews that synthesizes and distills the intervention and implementation literature together, and (3) offer recommendations for advancing element-level evidence in implementation science. A narrative review of the common elements literature was conducted with attention to applications to implementation research. A six-step guide to using an advanced common elements methodology was provided. Examples of potential results are presented, along with a review of the implications for implementation research and practice. Finally, we reviewed methodological limitations in current common elements approaches, and identified steps towards realizing their potential. Common elements methodologies can (a) synthesize and distill the implementation science literature into practical applications, (b) generate evidence-informed hypotheses about key elements and determinants in implementation and intervention processes and mechanisms, and (c) promote evidence-informed precision tailoring of intervention and implementation to context. To realize this potential, common elements approaches need improved reporting of details from both successful and unsuccessful intervention and implementation research, more data availability, and more testing and investigation of causal processes and mechanisms of change from diverse theories.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00077-4.