For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
10
views
Article has an altmetric score of 1
42
references
 Top references
cited by
5
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      231
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Registered nurse mentors' experiences from co‐creation in higher education targeting enhancement of mentorship practices in nursing homes: A qualitative study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          To explore registered nurse (RN) mentors' experiences of participating in the co‐creation of a digital educational resource intended to enhance mentorship practices of first‐year nursing students in clinical placement in nursing homes.

          Design

          An interpretive, descriptive qualitative study design.

          Methods

          Data were collected through two focus group interviews with 15 RN mentors ( n = 15) participating in co‐creative workshops. The co‐creative process entailed four co‐creative workshops conducted over a 17‐month period (June 2019 to end of Oct 2020). Focus group interviews were conducted following the second and third workshops (i.e., in Dec 2019 and in Oct 2020) and data were analysed using thematic analysis. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist was used to report the findings.

          Results

          The analysis identified three themes: (1) co‐creative reflective dialogues contributed to knowledge development and increased motivation among mentors; (2) the co‐creative approach facilitated and validated the nursing academic‐practice tripartite partnership; and (3) effectiveness of workshop structure in facilitating collaboration and mitigating power inequities.

          Conclusion

          A co‐creative process provides notable opportunities to advocate for mentorship needs and to enhance mentorship practices in nursing homes.

          Impact

          Our study adds to the evidence on co‐creation in nursing education, providing insights on the co‐creative process and methodology. Higher Education Institutions are uniquely positioned to act as a co‐creative arena for the academic–practice collaboration and for the development of educational resources within nursing education. Co‐creation may facilitate stronger academic–practice partnership that may more effectively impact mentorship practices in nursing homes and health care system effectiveness.

          Public Contributions

          The RNs included in the study were involved in the co‐creative process as active contributors informing the digital educational resource content and design.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

          Virginia Braun, Victoria Clarke (2016)
          Article 0 comments Cited 21528 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
          Article has an altmetric score of 487
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

            A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)
            Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Article 0 comments Cited 10393 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Article has an altmetric score of 346
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

              Kirsti Malterud, Volkert Dirk Siersma, Ann Guassora (2015)
              Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.
              Article 0 comments Cited 2343 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Article has an altmetric score of 220
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Christina T. Frøiland: (View ORCID Profile)
                Kristin Akerjordet: (View ORCID Profile)
                Ingunn Aase: (View ORCID Profile)
                Anne Marie Lunde Husebø: (View ORCID Profile)
                Linda Lundgaard Andersen: (View ORCID Profile)
                Kristin Laugaland: (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Title: Journal of Advanced Nursing
                Abbreviated Title: Journal of Advanced Nursing
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN (Print): 0309-2402
                ISSN (Electronic): 1365-2648
                Publication date Created: July 2023
                Publication date (Electronic): February 14 2023
                Publication date (Print): July 2023
                Volume: 79
                Issue: 7
                Pages: 2525-2538
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculty of Health Sciences SHARE – Centre for Resilience in Healthcare, University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway
                [2 ] Department of Quality and Health Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway
                [3 ] Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, School of Psychology University of Wollongong Wollongong Australia
                [4 ] Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences University of Stavanger Stavanger Norway
                [5 ] Department of People and Technology Roskilde University Roskilde Denmark
                Article
                DOI: 10.1111/jan.15602
                PubMed ID: 36788643
                SO-VID: 1b208c0e-ee51-4619-8aab-b1a7e5d3bbfc
                Copyright © © 2023
                License:

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                6
                0
                10
                0
                Smart Citations
                6
                0
                10
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content231

                See all similar

                Cited by5

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors646

                See all reference authors