Search

Aim: This study aims to present a general bibliometric overview of the development status of global nursing research from 2000 to 2019. Design: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis of nursing research was conducted. Methods: Nursing research publications (N = 88,665) were obtained from Web of Science. Bibliometric method was used to map the output and citation impact trends of countries/regions, institutions, disciplines, and journals and analyse the research collaboration among countries/regions and institutions. Results: The global paper output in nursing research increased steadily over the past two decades and it varied in different countries/regions with the USA being far ahead of the others. The paper output and cross‐border collaboration are mainly distributed in several developed countries like the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada. The University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, University of Toronto, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have high academic influence in the field of nursing. Increasing attention from academic fields has been paid to research on nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing is the most prolific and most cited journal in nursing field. Conclusion: Nursing research has developed steadily over the last two decades. Both the scientific output and research collaboration are disproportionally distributed between high‐income countries/regions and low‐ and middle‐income countries/regions. Most research and collaboration have taken place in a few developed countries across North America, Europe, and Oceania. Impact: The study highlighted the need for policy makers and funding agencies, especially those from low‐ and middle‐income countries/regions, to allocate research funding that supports the nursing higher education and international cooperation so as to promote the development of high‐quality nursing research in those countries/regions. At the same time, researchers from non‐English‐speaking countries/regions should attach more importance to publishing papers in English, strengthening the academic exchanges with international nursing colleagues and better integrating into the international academic community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To report a systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report instruments to identify the symptoms of anxiety in pregnancy to help clinicians and researchers select the most suitable instrument. Background Excessive anxiety in pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes, developmental and behavioural problems in infants and postnatal depression. Despite recommendations for routine psychological assessment in pregnancy, the optimal methods to identify anxiety in pregnancy have not been confirmed. Design Psychometric systematic review. Data sources A systematic literature search of the multiple databases (1990-September 2014). Review methods Identification of self-report instruments to measure anxiety in pregnancy using COSMIN guidelines to assess studies reporting a psychometric evaluation of validity and reliability. Results Thirty-two studies were included. Studies took place in the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Spain and the Netherlands. Seventeen different instruments were identified. Measures of validity were reported in 19 papers and reliability in 16. The overall quality of the papers was rated as fair to excellent using the COSMIN checklist. Only one paper scored excellent in more than one category. Conclusion Many instruments have been adapted for use in different populations to those for which they were designed. The State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale have been tested more frequently than other instruments, yet require further assessment to confirm their value for use in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims This study aimed to compare the findings of the quality of nursing doctoral education survey across seven countries and discuss the strategic directions for improving quality. Background No comparative evaluation of global quality of nursing doctoral education has been reported to date despite the rapid increase in the number of nursing doctoral programmes. Design A descriptive, cross-country, comparative design was employed. Methods Data were collected from 2007-2010 from nursing schools in seven countries: Australia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Thailand, UK and USA. An online questionnaire was used to evaluate quality of nursing doctoral education except for Japan, where a paper version was used. Korea and South Africa used e-mails quality of nursing doctoral education was evaluated using four domains: Programme, Faculty (referring to academic staff), Resource and Evaluation. Descriptive statistics, correlational and ordinal logistic regression were employed. Results A total of 105 deans/schools, 414 faculty and 1149 students/graduates participated. The perceptions of faculty and students/graduates about the quality of nursing doctoral education across the seven countries were mostly favourable on all four domains. The faculty domain score had the largest estimated coefficient for relative importance. As the overall quality level of doctoral education rose from fair to good, the resource domain showed an increased effect. Conclusions Both faculty and students/graduates groups rated the overall quality of nursing doctoral education favourably. The faculty domain had the greatest importance for quality, followed by the programme domain. However, the importance of the resource domain gained significance as the overall quality of nursing doctoral education increased, indicating the needs for more attention to resources if the quality of nursing doctoral education is to improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]