Search

Background. The scientific community views the publication of academic papers as a means of disseminating information, ensuring transparency and good practice in terms of research utilization. However, the choice of journal in which to publish is frequently influenced by other, less obvious, factors. This paper describes the lengthy route taken to get a methodological paper about pilot studies into print. Aim and method. This paper shares some of our experiences and discusses the lessons that we learned about the process of getting into print. A case study approach is adopted to help the reader understand the different influences on this process. Findings. Our methodological paper was submitted to six different academic journals before it was finally accepted for publication. The choice of journal was influenced by the need to reach an appropriate academic audience, the estimated turn around time (the time taken between submission of a paper and its subsequent publication) and the level of academic credibility of the journal (often assessed by the journal's Impact Factor). Publishing in 'high impact' academic journals assumed considerable importance for us in view of the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). However, the consequence of going down the journal status hierarchy was that we lost about 1 year through submitting, rewriting according to each of the journal's specific requirements and resubmitting. The case study also demonstrates that getting into print often depends on a range of factors, not just the quality of the written text. Conclusions. Getting a paper published may depend not only on the intrinsic quality of the paper, but also whether it is submitted to the 'right' academic journal. Moreover, if journals do not take certain papers (e.g. ones with negative findings or those reporting multi-disciplinary studies) then this can lead to publication bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces a series of articles on nursing and midwifery, which appeared in the 30th anniversary issue of the "Journal of Advanced Nursing."

Presents a review of paper published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1976–1979 and 1989–1992. Criteria noted on the submission of the papers; Final analysis on the characteristics of authors under the headings; General topics addressed in papers.

Presents an analysis of papers published in the "Journal of Advanced Nursing" throughout 2002. Country of origin of the papers; Categorization of the papers; Data collection methods used in empirical papers.

Aim. The aim of the paper is (1) to offer an overview of different theoretical approaches to discourse analysis and (2) to review papers published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing from 1996–2004 in which discourse analysis is identified as a method of data analysis. Background. Discourse analysis offers rigorous approaches to analysing naturally occurring talk and texts. Forms of discourse analysis have developed across broad theoretical bases. Such development has created challenges for researchers wishing to adopt this methodology and readers wishing to evaluate the quality of discourse analytic work. Methods. First, key documents which describe the theoretical range of discourse analysis are used to provide (i) a comprehensive overview of the approach, (ii) the identification of categories of discourse analysis and (iii) minimum criteria for determining if an individual paper can realistically claim to be adopting discourse analysis. Secondly, an electronic search followed by hand search of the Journal of Advanced Nursing full- contents between 1996 and 2004 was undertaken. The papers were grouped into the types of approach identified in i, and evaluated to see whether they met the ‘minimum criteria’ also identified in i. Findings. The search of Journal of Advanced Nursing revealed 24 papers where the authors stated that discourse analysis was among the methods or was the sole method of data analysis. The majority of the papers cluster around critical approaches to discourse analysis. Only a few approach discourse analysis primarily as analysis of conversation. Some papers are excellent, while others offer analysis that bears little resemblance to any form of discourse analysis. Conclusions. A strategy for improvement could include more rigorous attention on the part of those practising discourse analysis to methodology and the key features that differentiate the different approaches to discourse analysis from other qualitative methods. Authors should include sufficient detail of their approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a brief review of papers published in the 'Journal of Advanced Nursing,' 1983–1992. Classification of paper; Topics covered in the papers; Number of publications and papers featured.

Williamson G.R. (2003) Journal of Advanced Nursing 44(3), 278–288 Misrepresenting random sampling? A systematic review of research papers in the Journal of Advanced Nursing This paper discusses the theoretical limitations of the use of random sampling and probability theory in the production of a significance level (or P-value) in nursing research. Potential alternatives, in the form of randomization tests, are proposed. Research papers in nursing, medicine and psychology frequently misrepresent their statistical findings, as the P-values reported assume random sampling. In this systematic review of studies published between January 1995 and June 2002 in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 89 (68%) studies broke this assumption because they used convenience samples or entire populations. As a result, some of the findings may be questionable. The key ideas of random sampling and probability theory for statistical testing (for generating a P-value) are outlined. The result of a systematic review of research papers published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing is then presented, showing how frequently random sampling appears to have been misrepresented. Useful alternative techniques that might overcome these limitations are then discussed. This review is limited in scope because it is applied to one journal, and so the findings cannot be generalized to other nursing journals or to nursing research in general. However, it is possible that other nursing journals are also publishing research articles based on the misrepresentation of random sampling. The review is also limited because in several of the articles the sampling method was not completely clearly stated, and in this circumstance a judgment has been made as to the sampling method employed, based on the indications given by author(s). Quantitative researchers in nursing should be very careful that the statistical techniques they use are appropriate for the design and sampling methods of their studies. If the techniques they employ are not appropriate, they run the risk of misinterpreting findings by using inappropriate, unrepresentative and biased samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nursing research in Spain: bibliometrics of references of research papers in the decade 1985–1994 Background. Spain is one of the few European countries to have recently totally incorporated the study of nursing into the university sector. Bibliometric studies may be of a great help for the consolidation of nursing research. Aim of the study. The aim of this paper is to describe bibliographic references in Spanish nursing research papers and their evolution over a decade. Method. The method consists of a retrospective bibliometric study of a sample (cluster sampling) of 622 research papers (original papers and review papers), which were contained in the Spanish nursing journals Enfermería Científica, Revista ROL de Enfermería, Enfermería Clínica and Enfermería Integral, and published from 1985 to 1994. The journal Nursing Research was selected for qualitative comparative purposes. A series of classic bibliometric indexes were used. Results. The mean of references per paper is 10·64 ± 10·42; this increased over time (P < 0·001). Review papers have more references (P < 0·001). Price index (percentage of references published during the last 5 years) is 44% and the Insularity (percentage of references published in same country as the article) is 55%. References to journals predominate (58·6%), with a growing tendency for references to Spanish nursing journals, although they are still scarce (18·1% of the references to journals). Spanish is the language of most of the references (60·3%), the second language being English (36·1%). Conclusions. Bibliographic references in Spanish nursing research papers are scarce and not very specific: this happens both in regard to Nursing Research and to publications in other national and international science areas. However, there is an increasing tendency of references (including references to nursing journals) in the period analysed. The age of the... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Holism is claimed to be the signifying feature that sets women s health apart from traditional approaches to health care. As such, articles published in the nursing literature about women s health would, one might expect, reflect the centrality of holism to women s health care nursing. The findings of a study which examined the content and the focus of articles published about women s health in journals indexed by CINAHL in the period 1993 1995 challenge this assumption. It was found that women s health is a taken-for-granted notion and is used interchangeably and synonymously to refer to reproductive health, maternal health, neonatal health, family health and (hetero)sexual health. Confounding the view that holism is foundational to a women s health perspective, the papers forming the study s sample largely depict issues to do with women s health from a narrow and stereotypical perspective and with a bio-medical focus. Women were referred to as fragmented bodies, body parts and diseases, and were depicted as being passive and silent. By contrast, the voice (and the activity) of nurses and nursing s imperative to intervene was clearly discernible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Provides information on the process of reviewing papers for publication in the "Journal of Advanced Nursing." Role and significance of reviewers; Information on the journal's review process using Manuscript Central, the journal's online manuscript processing system; Expectations on reviewers and their reviews.

Aims of the study. This paper uses the findings of a recent bibliometric analysis of published UK nursing research to ask whether the field is characterized by a fundamental split between two underlying areas of research interest. These can be termed 'endogenous' and 'exogenous'. The former term describes research which tends to be concerned with problems and issues to do with nursing as a profession; the latter is concerned with problems and issues centring around the nursing of patients.Design/methods. Papers in the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database (ROD), a database of UK biomedical research, were analysed. Nursing papers published between 1988 and 1995 numbered 1845, just less than 1% of the total papers in the ROD.Results/findings. Analysis of the subfield identified that nursing research was atypical of biomedical research as a whole in a number of ways. One difference was that usually in biomedical research there is a general correlation between numbers of funders acknowledged on a paper, numbers of authors, and esteem of the journal in which a paper appears. In nursing there was, if anything, a tendency for highly esteemed papers to have fewer authors and be less likely to have acknowledged funding. However, the apparently endogenous and exogenous papers have quite different characteristics. This paper explores this apparent difference and possible reasons for this difference and will briefly compare nursing research with some other newly emerging social and academic groups.Conclusions. Thinking of nursing research outputs in this way can provide insight into the existence of different reward systems influencing nurse researchers. However, it is impossible to draw too confident a differentiation without reading each individual paper and making judgements about whether they are 'endogenous' or 'exogenous', a practice generally beyond the scope of bibliometric practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIM: The aim of this paper is to report a study to determine the effects of absorbent pads on the pressure-relieving properties of 'standard' and pressure management mattresses. BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers and incontinence often co-exist. There is a strong association between poor mobility and continence problems and patients using pressure management products are therefore also likely to be using absorbent pads. METHODS: An instrumented articulated anthropometric phantom with simulated soft body 'tissues' in the gluteal and sacral areas was used as the 'subject'. The phantom was raised and lowered on to three mattresses (standard foam, visco-elastic foam and surface-cut foam) in three states: naked, wearing a dry pad (Tena Super, SCA Hygiene AB) and wearing a wet pad. The pressure mapping device Xsensor was used to record the distribution of pressure over the sacral and ischial areas of the phantom. Peak pressure was used as the primary outcome variable and 10 repeats were made on each mattress under each condition. RESULTS: There were substantial and significant differences for all three mattresses in recorded peak pressures between the naked buttocks and the buttocks wearing a dry pad. There were no significant differences between measurements made using the dry vs. wet pad. Peak pressures frequently occurred over areas of pad folds. Additional testing showed that pads that were 'smoothed' by hand had significantly lower peak pressures than 'unsmoothed' pads. CONCLUSIONS: Absorbent pads have a substantial adverse effect on the pressure redistribution properties of mattresses. Pad folds appear to contribute to this effect, which can be ameliorated slightly by smoothing. Absorbent pad manufacturers should consider engineering pads that minimize disruption to pressure management. Further examination of continence and pressure management products is necessary to establish optimum combinations for nursing care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophical analysis is increasingly applied to nursing issues. Whereas pre-analytical discussions might be sloppy, analysis should bring rigour. This paper explores some mistakes and misconceptions concerning nurse-related reasonings. It uses, as a running theme, a recent paper in the Journal of Advanced Nursing by Rolfe. The mistakes and misleadings to be found in the paper are not uncommon; so the paper's correction quest aims more widely than single author critique. The mistakes and misconceptions could initially appear abstract and without practical outcome; in order to avoid the threatened appearance, a nursing case study is presented, displaying some undesirable consequences for a nurse who is misled by her reading. It is hoped that this paper shows how some accuracy may be well leading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. This paper discusses the theoretical limitations of the use of random sampling and probability theory in the production of a significance level (or P-value) in nursing research. Potential alternatives, in the form of randomization tests, are proposed.Background. Research papers in nursing, medicine and psychology frequently misrepresent their statistical findings, as the P-values reported assume random sampling. In this systematic review of studies published between January 1995 and June 2002 in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 89 (68%) studies broke this assumption because they used convenience samples or entire populations. As a result, some of the findings may be questionable.Discussion. The key ideas of random sampling and probability theory for statistical testing (for generating a P-value) are outlined. The result of a systematic review of research papers published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing is then presented, showing how frequently random sampling appears to have been misrepresented. Useful alternative techniques that might overcome these limitations are then discussed.Review limitations. This review is limited in scope because it is applied to one journal, and so the findings cannot be generalized to other nursing journals or to nursing research in general. However, it is possible that other nursing journals are also publishing research articles based on the misrepresentation of random sampling. The review is also limited because in several of the articles the sampling method was not completely clearly stated, and in this circumstance a judgment has been made as to the sampling method employed, based on the indications given by author(s).Conclusion. Quantitative researchers in nursing should be very careful that the statistical techniques they use are appropriate for the design and sampling methods of their studies. If the techniques they employ are not appropriate, they run the risk of misinterpreting findings by using inappropriate, unrepresentative and biased samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Holism is claimed to be the signifying feature that sets women's health apart from traditional approaches to health care. As such, articles published in the nursing literature about women's health would, one might expect, reflect the centrality of holism to women's health care nursing. The findings of a study which examined the content and the focus of articles published about women's health in journals indexed by CINAHL in the period 1993-1995 challenge this assumption. It was found that women's health is a taken-for-granted notion and is used interchangeably and synonymously to refer to reproductive health, maternal health, neonatal health, family health and (hetero) sexual health. Confounding the view that holism is foundational to a women's health perspective, the papers forming the study's sample largely depict issues to do with women's health from a narrow and stereotypical perspective and with a bio-medical focus. Women were referred to as fragmented bodies, body parts and diseases, and were depicted as being passive and silent. By contrast, the voice (and the activity) of nurses and nursing's imperative to intervene was clearly discernible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research plays an important part in providing evidence for practice in nursing, and is gaining greater acceptance within medicine. However, questions remain about what criteria are most appropriate for evaluating qualitative research. To date, little systematic evaluation of qualitative research in palliative care has been conducted. AIMS: This paper is based on a larger study in which we conducted a critical review of qualitative research in palliative care from nursing, medicine, specialist palliative care, sociology, death studies, medical anthropology, and gerontology journals published between 1990 and 1999. The aim of this paper is to present an account of the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative palliative care research in nursing, using data from this review. METHODS: In the larger study, 138 papers from 50 journals were reviewed critically using a tool developed to assess both content and quality; in one part of this tool reviewers recorded open-ended comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. In this paper, we present a thematic analysis of reviewers' comments on a subgroup of 67 nursing papers from the main review, together with an analysis of comments on 29 papers from a comparison group of death studies, medical anthropology, and sociology journals. Patterns of positive and negative evaluation are identified and used to generate an account of strengths and weaknesses in qualitative palliative care research in nursing. FINDINGS: Over 40% of the subgroup of papers from nursing journals received positive comments on topic and quality of writing; around 30% received positive comments on contribution to understanding, practical value, and conceptual or theoretical issues. Less than 20% received positive comments on other critical dimensions. Over 40% of nursing papers received negative comments on the link between data, analysis, and findings, other aspects of method and theoretical and conceptual issues. A higher proportion of papers in the comparison group received positive comments on conceptual and theoretical issues and contribution to understanding. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half the nursing papers reviewed were judged to be well written or to have a well-chosen topic. However, more than 40% of papers drew negative comments about key methods-related issues. Arguably therefore efforts to improve the quality of research evidence should focus on this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explores the existing status of electronically accessible theory construction papers in nursing literature. Features of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; Advantages of the theory construction in nursing practices; Presentation of traditional and non-traditional methods of tapping into the electronic domain for theory construction.

A great deal of the caring work of nursing is accomplished and mediated through language. This paper attempts to characterize some of this language in quantitative and stylistic terms in an attempt to characterize the genre of nursing report language. Nursing students (n = 26) and graduate nurses (n = 3) viewed a videotape of a person being interviewed by a psychiatrist and produced written reports. These showed a large proportion of words relating to the person and to feelings and needs, compared to existing databases of the English language in general. The language produced by the participants also contained many modal or modifying words and is similar to spoken rather than written English in terms of the proportion of lexical content. There was much diversity in their descriptions and the vocabulary used to refer to the client. Graduate nurses showed more scepticism of the evidence provided by the video and advocated more investigation and questioning of the client. The use of standard forms and techniques of expression suggests that these reports were assembled on a language production line. Finally, we advocate a more systematic approach to educating nursing students about the power of the language they use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]