Search

Background: International and migrant students face specific challenges which may impact their mental health, well-being and academic outcomes, and these may be gendered experiences. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature on the challenges, coping responses and supportive interventions for international and migrant students in academic nursing programs in major host countries, with a gender lens. Methods: We searched 10 databases to identify literature reporting on the challenges, coping responses and/or supportive interventions for international and migrant nursing students in college or university programs in Canada, the United-States, Australia, New Zealand or a European country. We included peer-reviewed research (any design), discussion papers and literature reviews. English, French and Spanish publications were considered and no time restrictions were applied. Drawing from existing frameworks, we critically assessed each paper and extracted information with a gender lens. Results: One hundred fourteen publications were included. Overall the literature mostly focused on international students, and among migrants, migration history/status and length of time in country were not considered with regards to challenges, coping or interventions. Females and males, respectively, were included in 69 and 59% of studies with student participants, while those students who identify as other genders/sexual orientations were not named or identified in any of the research. Several papers suggest that foreign-born nursing students face challenges associated with different cultural roles, norms and expectations for men and women. Other challenges included perceived discrimination due to wearing a hijab and being a 'foreign-born male nurse', and in general nursing being viewed as a feminine, low-status profession. Only two strategies, accessing support from family and other student mothers, used by women to cope with challenges, were identified. Supportive interventions considering gender were limited; these included matching students with support services' personnel by sex, involving male family members in admission and orientation processes, and using patient simulation as a method to prepare students for care-provision of patients of the opposite-sex. Conclusion: Future work in nursing higher education, especially regarding supportive interventions, needs to address the intersections of gender, gender identity/sexual orientation and foreign-born status, and also consider the complexity of migrant students' contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was approved for primary HIV prevention by the Federal Drug Administration in 2012, PrEP utilization has been suboptimal. A body of literature and programs has emerged to examine the role of nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants and nursing staff in PrEP care. This review aims to understand the current status of non-physician health providers in PrEP care implementation in the United States. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we conducted a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases to identify peer-reviewed articles that examined the role of non-physician health providers in the implementation of PrEP. Four major databases of studies using observational study design, randomized control trials and mixed-method study design were screened from November 2019 to January 2020 were searched. Two independent reviewers examined eligibility and conducted data extraction. We employed random-effects model aims to capture variances of estimates across studies. Results: A total of 26 studies with 15,789 health professionals, including NPs (18, 95% CI = 14,24%), physician assistants (6, 95% CI = 2, 10%), nursing staff (26, 95% CI = 18–34%), and physicians (62,95% CI = 45, 75%), were included in the analysis. The odds of prescribing PrEP to patients among NPs were 40% (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.02,1.92) higher than that among physicians, while the likelihood of being willing to prescribe PrEP was similar. On the other hand, the odds of being aware of PrEP (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.87) was 37% less in nursing professionals than that among physicians. Conclusions: Although the limited number and scope of existing studies constrained the generalizability of our findings, the pattern of PrEP care implementation among non-physician health providers was described. To achieve wider PrEP care implementation in the U.S., increasing awareness of PrEP among all health providers including both physicians and non-physicians is a key step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]