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]

Objective: To evaluate the parent‐proxy version of the pediatric Charcot Marie Tooth specific quality of life (pCMT‐QOL) outcome instrument for children aged 7 or younger with CMT. We have previously developed and validated the direct‐report pCMT‐QOL for children aged 8–18 years and a parent proxy version of the instrument for children 8–18 years old. There is currently no CMT‐QOL outcome measure for children aged 0–7 years old. Methods: Testing was conducted in parents or caregivers of children aged 0–7 years old with CMT evaluated at participating INC sites from the USA, United Kingdom, and Australia. The development of the instrument was iterative, involving identification of relevant domains, item pool generation, prospective pilot testing and clinical assessments, structured focus group interviews, and psychometric testing. The parent‐proxy instrument was validated rigorously by examining previously identified domains and undergoing psychometric tests for children aged 0–7. Results: The parent‐proxy pCMT‐QOL working versions were administered to 128 parents/caregivers of children aged 0–7 years old between 2010 and 2016. The resulting data underwent rigorous psychometric analysis, including factor analysis, internal consistency, and convergent validity, and longitudinal analysis to develop the final parent‐proxy version of the pCMT‐QOL outcome measure for children aged 0–7 years old. Conclusions: The parent‐proxy version of the pCMT‐QOL outcome measure, known as the pCMT‐QOL (0–7 years parent‐proxy) is a valid and sensitive proxy measure of health‐related QOL for children aged 0–7 years with CMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]