Current Issue : October - December Volume : 2019 Issue Number : 4 Articles : 6 Articles
Background: Augmented reality (AR) has the potential to be utilized in various fields. Nursing fulfils the requirements of\nsmart glass use cases, and technology may be one method of supporting nurses that face challenges such as\ndemographic change. The development of AR to assist in nursing is now feasible. Attempts to develop applications have\nbeen made, but there has not been an overview regarding the existing research.\nObjective: The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the current research regarding AR in nursing to\nidentify possible research gaps. This led to the following research question: â??To date, what research has been performed\nregarding the use of AR in nursing?â?. A focus has been placed on the topics involving cases, evaluations, and devices\nused.\nMethods: A scoping review was carried out with the methodological steps outlined by Arksey and Oâ??Malley (2005) and\nfurther enhanced by Levac et al. (2010). A broad range of keywords were used systematically in eight databases including\nPubMed, Web of Science and ACM to search for topics in nursing.\nResults: The search led to 23 publications that were included in the final analysis. The majority of the identified\npublications describe pilot studies. The methods used for identifying use cases and evaluating applications differ among\nthe included studies. Furthermore, the devices used vary from study to study and may include smart glasses, tablets, and\nsmart watches, among others. Previous studies predominantly evaluated the use of smart glasses. In addition, evaluations\ndid not take framing conditions into account. Reviewed publications that evaluated the use of AR in nursing also\nidentified technical challenges associated with AR.\nConclusions: These results show that the use of AR in nursing may have positive implications. While current studies focus\non evaluating prototypes, future studies should focus on performing long-term evaluations to take framing conditions\nand the long-term consequences of AR into consideration. Our findings are important and informative for nurses and\ntechnicians who are involved in the development of new technologies. They can use our findings to reflect on their own\ndesign of case identification, requirements for elicitation and evaluation....
Referring back to the early days, when there were essentially two types of review; a Cochrane systematic review\nand a narrative review, we identify how the term systematic review is now widely used to describe a variety of\nreview types and how the number of available methods for doing a literature review has increased dramatically.\nThis led us to undertake a review of current practice of those doing a literature review and the terms used to\ndescribe them.\nMethod: We undertook a focused mapping review and synthesis. Literature reviews; defined as papers with the\nterms review or synthesis in the title, published in five nursing journals between January 2017-June 2018 were\nidentified. We recorded the type of review and how these were undertaken.\nResults: We identified more than 35 terms used to describe a literature review. Some terms reflected established\nmethods for doing a review whilst others could not be traced to established methods and/or the description of\nmethod in the paper was limited. We also found inconsistency in how the terms were used.\nConclusion: We have identified a proliferation of terms used to describe doing a literature review; although it is\nnot clear how many distinct methods are being used. Our review indicates a move from an era when the term\nnarrative review was used to describe all â??non Cochraneâ?? reviews; to a time of expansion when alternative\nsystematic approaches were developed to enhance rigour of such narrative reviews; to the current situation in\nwhich these approaches have proliferated to the extent so that the academic discipline of doing a literature review\nhas become muddled and confusing. We argue that an â??era of consolidationâ?? is needed in which those undertaking\nreviews are explicit about the method used and ensure that their processes can be traced back to a well described,\noriginal primary source....
Background: Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment\nbetween causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not\ninterested in communicating caution).\nMethods: We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news:\n(a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious\nfor correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The â??participantsâ?? were press releases on health-related topics (N = 312; c claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80)\nfrom nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims,\ncaveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N = 2257), news\nuptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious\nstatements).\nResults: News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat\nanalysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also\nfollowed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The\nsame was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There\nwas no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7\nto 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs\n52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and\ncaveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively).\nConclusions: News claims-even headlines-can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and\nexplicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from\nAT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press\nreleases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across\nconditions....
Background: Despite the global rise in the number of nurses upgrading from Registered Nursing (RN) to a Bachelor of\nScience in Nursing (BSN), studies have indicated that successful role transition is difficult once the nurses return\nto their previous workplaces. Guided by the Transitional Theory, this study investigates the factors that influence\nthe transition from basic to advanced roles among RN to BSN nurses in Uganda, Africa.\nMethods: This study employed a descriptive correlational design. Using convenience sampling, fifty-one (51) RN\nto BSN nurses completed the semi-structured questionnaires.\nResults: All the study participants (100%) described themselves as having transitioned from RN to BSN role. In\nbivariate linear regression, personal factors that were found to predict successful role transition included holding\na managerial role, being aware and prepared for the role transition, and positive role transition experiences. Role\ntransition motivators that predicted successful role transition included: job promotion, internal desire for selfdevelopment,\nand career development. One community factor â?? that is the support of doctors/physicians during\nthe RN to BSN transition â?? predicted unsuccessful role transition. Societal factors deterring successful role\ntransition included lack of support from other colleagues and the perception that BSN learning was not applicable to\nthe RN clinical setting. In multivariate linear regression, only sub-scales of personal factors such as advanced skills\nmastery and positive personal experiences predicted successful role transition....
Background: Despite increasing interest in research on how to translate knowledge into practice and improve\nhealthcare, the accumulation of scientific knowledge in this field is slow. Few substantial new insights have become\navailable in the last decade.\nMain body: Various problems hinder development in this field. There is a frequent misfit between problems and\napproaches to implementation, resulting in the use of implementation strategies that do not match with the\ntargeted problems. The proliferation of concepts, theories and frameworks for knowledge transfer - many of which\nare untested --has not advanced the field. Stakeholder involvement is regarded as crucial for successful knowledge\nimplementation, but many approaches are poorly specified and unvalidated. Despite the apparent decreased\nappreciation of rigorous designs for effect evaluation, such as randomized trials, these should remain within the\nportfolio of implementation research. Outcome measures for knowledge implementation tend to be crude, but it is\nimportant to integrate patient preferences and the increased precision of knowledge.\nConclusions: We suggest that the research enterprise be redesigned in several ways to address these problems\nand enhance scientific progress in the interests of patients and populations. It is crucially important to establish\nsubstantial programmes of research on implementation and improvement in healthcare, and better recognize the\nsocietal and practical benefits of research....
Background: This study aimed to identify the predictors of LGBT recognition\nby health sciences university students in Japan. Methods: This is a\ncross-sectional study that used quantitative data collected from 481 returned\nself-report questionnaires distributed to 866 health sciences undergraduate\nand graduate students. The following survey item and scales were used for\nmeasuring the main outcomes: Thoughts about sexual identity , Empathy\nscale , Objectivity scale , and LGBT recognition scale . Data were analyzed using\ndescriptive statistics, two-sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance,\nand multiple regression analyses. SPSS ver. 23.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA)\nwas used for data analysis at a 5% significance level. Results: The number\nof returned questionnaires was 481 (55.5%). There was no significant difference\nin the LGBT recognition and the participantâ??s characteristics (e.g.,\nage and medical history). The 5 significant predictors of LGBT recognition\nwere: 1) Empathy (Beta = 0.19, p < 0.001); 2) LGBT learning experience (Beta =\n0.18, p < 0.001); 3) Objectivity (Beta = 0.15, p < 0.01); 4) Sexual problem with a\nclose person (Beta = 0.13, p < 0.01); and 5) Suffering from gender identity (Beta =\n0.09, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The predictive factors of LGBT recognition\nwere Empathy , LGBT learning experience , Objectivity , Sexual problem with \na close person, and Suffering from gender identity . Careful development\nand implementation of LGBT educational programs are needed to better understand\nthe situations and ideas of LGBT parties to enhance their recognition....
Loading....