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]

Background: The involvement of speech and language therapists (SLTs) within paediatric palliative care (PPC) settings has been recognized within the extant literature. However, there is little understanding of SLT's specific roles and practices when working with this vulnerable cohort of children and their families. As part of a larger body of work to develop consensus‐based recommendations for SLTs working in PPC, it is important to investigate demographic and caseload characteristics. Aims: This exploratory study aimed to gather previously undocumented international demographic data pertaining to SLT service provision, caseload and training in PPC. Additionally, it sought to ascertain the current treatment and assessment approaches of SLTs, and if variations exist in beliefs and practices. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous cross‐sectional survey was designed and reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES). The online survey consisted of 40 items spanning four domains: (1) demographic information, (2) caseload information, (3) service provision and (4) training and education. SLTs from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the United States were recruited using a purposive snowball sampling approach. Descriptive analysis of closed‐ended survey responses and content analysis of open‐ended responses are presented. Outcomes & Results: A total of 52 respondents completed the survey. SLTs worked in a variety of PPC settings, with patients of varying age and disease groups. Over 50% of participants reported working in PPC for ≤ 4 years. Genetic disorders (34%), oncology (27%) and neurological conditions (21%) made up a significant portion of respondents' caseloads. Reported treatments and assessment approaches used by SLTs are not unique to a PPC population. Barriers and enablers for practice were identified. A portion of participants did not feel trained and prepared to assess (19.2%) or treat (15.4%) PPC clients. Conclusions & Implications: This study confirms that SLTs internationally have a role in the management of communication and swallowing impairments in a PPC context. However, whether current training and resources adequately support SLTs in this role remains questionable. This paper helps to provide SLTs, administrators, professional associations and tertiary institutions with foundational data to help inform workforce planning, advocacy efforts and training priorities. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectThe published multidisciplinary literature has identified that SLTs have a role in PPC. However, there has been no targeted research investigating the professional characteristics of clinicians in this context, nor any detailed information regarding associated clinician beliefs or management approaches.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study is a snapshot of attributes, practice patterns and beliefs of SLTs who work with a PPC population. It highlights SLT perspectives of education and training, as well as meta‐perceptions of themselves within the multidisciplinary team.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Data presented in this paper will help to enable SLTs, organizations and associations to augment service provision and determine future professional development priorities within the field of PPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This paper examines how negative experiences with the health-care system create a lack of confidence in receiving medical care in seven countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Methods The empirical analysis is based on data from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2007, with nationally representative samples of adults aged 18 and over. For the analysis of the experience of cost barriers and confidence in receiving medical care, we conducted pairwise comparisons of group percentages as well as country-wise multivariate logistic regression models. Results Individuals who have experienced cost barriers show a significantly lower level of confidence in receiving safe and quality medical care than those who have not. This effect is most pronounced in the United States, where people who have foregone necessary treatment because of costs are four times as likely to lack confidence as individuals without the experience of cost barriers (adjusted odds ratio 4.00). In New Zealand, Germany, and Canada, individuals with the experience of cost barriers are twice as likely to report low confidence compared with those without this experience (adjusted odds ratios of 1.95, 2.19 and 2.24, respectively). In the Netherlands and UK, cost barriers are only a marginal phenomenon. Conclusions The fact that the experience of financial barriers considerably lowers confidence indicates that financial incentives, such as private co-payments, have a negative effect on overall public support and therefore on the legitimacy of health-care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]