Search

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]

Measures of self-forgiveness that merely focus on the outcome of positive self-regard risk neglecting the process through which offenders restore it. They may thus tap pseudo self-forgiveness where offenders downplay their responsibility for the wrongdoing. For genuine self-forgiveness, the process should instead involve an attenuation of the negative link between responsibility acceptance and positive self-regard. In this paper, we examine how acts of value reaffirmation facilitate genuine self-forgiveness. In Study 1, a role-play experiment (N = 90), participants either confessed their wrongdoing to the victim or not. Although responsibility acceptance was strongly negatively related to reported self-forgiveness (i.e., self-regard), this relationship was tempered when participants confessed their wrongdoing to the victim and, through this, reaffirmed the violated values. In Study 2, a longitudinal study referring to self-reported transgressions (N = 74), responsibility acceptance was negatively related to self-forgiveness measures as well as self-esteem when offenders showed little value reaffirmation, but not when they more strongly reaffirmed the violated values. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HALKETT G.K.B., COX J., ANDERSON C. & HEARD R. (2012) European Journal of Cancer Care 21, 31-40. Establishing research priorities for Australian radiation therapists: what patient care priorities need to be addressed? Much of the research conducted in radiotherapy focuses on technology advances; however, research may also be warranted in the area of patient care. The aims of this paper are to (1) identify patient care-related research priorities in radiation therapy and (2) describe similarities and differences in radiation therapists' responses to research priorities related to patient care by subgroups revealed through cluster analysis. A Delphi process was used, examining problems in research that radiation therapists face. Three hundred and seventy-four problems were identified. These were translated into 53 research areas which were then prioritised. Participant subgroups were identified using a hierarchical cluster procedure. Agreement and disagreement between subgroups for the subscale of 'Patient Care' were analysed with ANOVA and post hoc Scheffe multiple comparisons. The three subgroups had varying degrees of research interest in patient care. The groups agreed on the importance of research in relation to patient care in reducing and managing side effects, patient education and support, and treatment techniques. However, there was disagreement about the importance of conducting research into the role of radiation therapists, radiation therapists communicating and educating patients, and psychosocial support. Further research is warranted to determine radiotherapy patients' priorities and improve evidence-based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

gardner g., gardner a., middleton s., della p., kain v. & doubrovsky a. (2010) The work of nurse practitioners. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(10), 2160–2169. Aim. This paper is a report of a study of variations in the pattern of nurse practitioner work in a range of service fields and geographical locations, across direct patient care, indirect patient care and service-related activities. Background. The nurse practitioner role has been implemented internationally as a service reform model to improve the access and timeliness of health care. There is a substantial body of research into the nurse practitioner role and service outcomes, but scant information on the pattern of nurse practitioner work and how this is influenced by different service models. Methods. We used work sampling methods. Data were collected between July 2008 and January 2009. Observations were recorded from a random sample of 30 nurse practitioners at 10-minute intervals in 2-hour blocks randomly generated to cover 2 weeks of work time from a sampling frame of 6 weeks. Results. A total of 12,189 individual observations were conducted with nurse practitioners across Australia. Thirty individual activities were identified as describing nurse practitioner work, and these were distributed across three categories. Direct care accounted for 36·1% of how nurse practitioners spend their time, indirect care accounted for 32·0% and service-related activities made up 31·9%. Conclusion. These findings provide useful baseline data for evaluation of nurse practitioner positions and the service effect of these positions. However, the study also raises questions about the best use of nurse practitioner time and the influences of barriers to and facilitators of this model of service innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]