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]

mcinnes e., seers k. & tutton l. (2011) Older people's views in relation to risk of falling and need for intervention: a meta-ethnography. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(12), 2525-2536. Abstract Aim. This paper is a report of a meta-ethnography of qualitative studies of older peoples' views on risk of falling and need for intervention. Background. Falls and falls-related injuries in older people are worldwide problems. A conceptual understanding of older people's views about falls risk and need for intervention is useful for understanding factors likely to impact on acceptance of risk and recommended interventions. Data Sources. Seven electronic databases were searched 1999-2009. Reference lists of included articles were screened for eligible papers. Review Methods. Assessment of quality was carried out. Themes and concepts were extracted using a meta-ethnographic approach to compare similarities and differences across the retrieved studies. A line of argument was developed to produce an explanatory framework of the extracted themes and concepts. Results. Eleven relevant qualitative research articles of reasonable quality were identified. Six key concepts were identified: beyond personal control; rationalizing; salience; life-change and identity; taking control and self-management. A line of argument synthesis describes how older people approach self-appraisal of falls risk and intervention need, and how they cope and adapt to falls risk and intervention need. Conclusion. In response to having an elevated risk status and perceived associations with frailty and impact on an independent life-style, some prefer to adapt to this reality by taking control and implementing self-management strategies. Healthcare professionals should take into account beliefs about risk and negotiate choices for intervention, recognizing that some individuals prefer to drive the decision-making process to preserve identity as a competent and independent person. [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]