Nurse Researcher最新文献

Background: There is an increasing need to develop innovative ways of collecting data that empower vulnerable people, such as those who use mental health services.

Aim: To describe a novel, arts-based research method called the Jay-Canvas Artboard Approach (Jay-CAA), which involves a group collectively writing short descriptions on a canvas artboard about their experiences.

Discussion: The authors asked participants in two studies to use coloured pens to write decorative comments on shared canvas artboards. They then analysed this data using thematic analysis.

Conclusion: The Jay-CAA enabled the creation and collection of data in a time-effective way that was unproblematic for recruiting and retaining participants.

Implications for practice: The Jay-CAA method enables research participants to summarise and express their experiences.

Background: Focus groups are a common way to collect qualitative research data, but they require a skilled approach to manage participants and elicit the required information.

Aim: To discuss the use of focus groups in the context of an example study that used a grounded theory approach.

Discussion: This article explores some of the main practical issues when conducting focus groups, which can have significant impacts on the data collated and the final outcomes. They include ensuring a focus group is the most likely method of yielding the information required, how to conduct it and the lines of enquiry throughout.

Conclusion: Focus groups are effective tools, but their success relies on having a skilled moderator to elicit salient points that answer the research question. Technology can mitigate some of their logistical constraints as well, bringing together homogenous groups spread over large geographical areas.

Implications for practice: Taking a structured approach when planning and conducting focus groups can yield high-quality data.

Background: Literature reviews are essential in nursing for integrating research into practice, informing clinical guidelines and shaping health policy. They comprehensively synthesise the available evidence, supporting nurses in making informed decisions that improve patient care. It is therefore crucial when researchers are selecting the method most appropriate for investigating their clinical questions that they understand the different types of literature review.

Aim: To explore the characteristics, strengths and limitations of narrative, systematic and scoping reviews, as well as highlight their significance in nursing practice globally.

Discussion: Narrative reviews provide broad, flexible overviews of topics; however, they lack methodological rigour, which can potentially result in bias. Systematic reviews provide high-quality, reliable evidence by using a structured approach to synthesising data from multiple studies; this makes them valuable for clinical decision-making and the development of guidelines. Scoping reviews map the scope of research onto emerging topics, identifying gaps and future research priorities, though they do not typically assess the quality of included studies.

Conclusion: Literature reviews are vital tools for nurses worldwide. Understanding the differences between types of literature review enables nurses to effectively use the one most appropriate to their needs. This is essential for evidence-based practice, informs clinical and policy decisions, and supports high-quality patient care, as well as contributing to nurses' professional development.

Implications for practice: Nurses who engage with literature reviews can stay informed about the latest research, improve patient outcomes and participate in the advancement of nursing knowledge globally.

Background: Researchers have an ethical responsibility to share their findings with their studies' participants and those who can influence policy and practice. Storytelling is an arts-based approach increasingly used in nursing research to share findings, but little has been written about how to use the approach in participatory research involving people from minority ethnic and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Aim: To present a guide to cocreating digital stories to share research findings with minority ethnic and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities.

Discussion: The authors and peer researchers from minority communities used a rigorous method to cocreate composite digital stories from their qualitative research's findings. The authors describe and reflect on the stages of the creative process, focusing on the actions required before, at and after the collaborative workshop.

Conclusion: A rigorous process is required to create composite, naturalistic digital stories that authentically reflect research findings and are accessible to listeners.

Implications for practice: Digital stories are an engaging, feasible and equitable way to share research findings with minority ethnic and disadvantaged communities.

Background: Descriptive quantitative researchers often use surveys to collect data about a group or phenomenon. Determining the required sample size in descriptive surveys can pose a challenge as there is no simple 'formula' by which to calculate an appropriate sample. However, when a sample is too small the study may fail to answer the research question and too many responses can create resource implications.

Aim: To explore considerations regarding the justification of adequate sample size in descriptive quantitative research.

Discussion: Several considerations may assist quantitative descriptive researchers in examining the appropriateness and justification of sample size. Response rates can guide decision-making around the proportion of the target population who respond. Additionally, consideration of any validated tools, the spread or responses and types of analysis can guide sampling decisions.

Conclusion: The strategies in this article provide a considered approach to justifying sample size in descriptive quantitative research. Factors such as response rates and analytical considerations provide a transparent means of justifying an adequate sample.

Implications for practice: Providing clear justification for the sample size within descriptive quantitative research demonstrates a robust research approach and optimises resource use.

Background: Researchers may often find it challenging to gather data with underserved populations, even when using traditional qualitative methods. They may also be at risk of further entrenching the hegemony of the dominant narrative, silencing participants' experiences and further marginalising and excluding those most in need. Timelines and other creative methods are useful, sensitive tools that combine flexibility and malleability with an ethical appeal, such as feminist ethics of care. Researchers can use them to gather data from participants experiencing inequalities and trauma.

Aim: To outline the value of timelines as a method in nursing research.

Discussion: This article considers feminist values, power dynamics and the ethics of using timelines when gathering data. It illustrates these using the example of a study involving female sex workers.

Conclusion: Creative methods minimise the ways in which researchers control the production of data and enable participants to choose how they narrate complex and traumatic experiences. Researchers can combine them with deep, ongoing reflexivity to address some of the power imbalances inherent in research and mitigate epistemic violence.

Implications for practice: There are strong and evidence-based ethical motivations for conducting research using creative methods. Having a flexible approach to their application and use in practice is key, as not everyone wants to engage with creative methods, or they may not wish to engage with that specific method at that time. Creative methods can serve as vital anchor points in your interviews with participants and are as much about the process as they are about the output.

Background: It is essential to synthesise evidence to ensure that reliable data inform clinical practice. Umbrella reviews are a key approach for aggregating findings from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-syntheses. They help healthcare professionals to evaluate diverse findings in a single, comprehensive review. Healthcare professionals must understand how umbrella reviews work to enable them to interpret the broader research landscape and make informed clinical decisions.

Aim: To introduce the main features of umbrella reviews, examine their strengths and limitations and outline the stages involved in conducting a review.

Discussion: Umbrella reviews typically involve identifying relevant reviews, assessing their quality, synthesising their findings and highlighting overall patterns and gaps. There are challenges in conducting umbrella reviews, including the potential variability of the included reviews' quality and difficulties comparing studies with different methodologies. Nonetheless, they remain vital in guiding evidence-based practice, offering clarity in complex healthcare landscapes.

Conclusion: Umbrella reviews are essential tools for synthesising high-level evidence, streamlining the process of informing clinical practice. Despite certain limitations, they support evidence-based decision-making effectively.

Implications for practice: By aggregating evidence from systematic and meta-studies, umbrella reviews enhance understanding of complex health issues, enabling clinicians to make well-informed decisions. They improve patient care, support better clinical guidelines and reduce variability in treatment. However, clinicians must account for potential variations in the quality of the included studies.

Background: The authors were members of a large, interorganisational research project conducted by a university and an English NHS trust. The project's success relied on building positive partnerships and networks over three years. Recognising the challenges of working across different organisations, the authors created a new role for a nurse: the 'in-place research coordinator' (IPRC).

Aim: To introduce and explain the new role and provide examples of how the authors devised and applied it during their research.

Discussion: The IPRC was a member of the NHS trust, so brought valuable organisational insights to the research team while gaining research experience through applying her professional knowledge and connections.

Conclusion: The IPRC enabled this inter-organisational research to take place, and had measurable efficacy and impact.

Implications for practice: The authors recommend that future collaborative inter-organisational research projects include an IPRC, with specific budgeting for the role and recruitment from practice.

Background: Grounded theory (GT) has become one of the foremost tools in qualitative nursing research. There are different approaches to GT but a feature common to all of them is theoretical sensitivity, which facilitates GT's iterative process. However, differences between the approaches in how to apply theoretical sensitivity and how much influence existing knowledge should play have contributed to tribalism.

Aim: To critically evaluate the role of theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in GT and the involvement they can have, as well as explore what steps researchers can take to improve their insight.

Discussion: Theoretical sensitivity enables researchers to steer their studies to answer their research questions, gain insight into their study's findings and develop theory grounded in the data. However, reflection is required for researchers to understand their effect on the theories that emerge, prevent them from applying preconceived ideas and allow for the unfettered emergence of theory.

Conclusion: Researchers who do not demonstrate insight into their own philosophical positions and influences risk being accused of bias; this may result in the perceived value of their theoretical outcomes being reduced. Applying a reflexive process may mitigate this, enabling them to understand and refine their methodological processes and produce high-quality GT research.

Implications for practice: All researchers should consider using reflexivity when conducting research. Understanding influences and positionality in qualitative methodologies allows for transparency and improves the rigour of their outcomes.

Background: Reorganizing the Approach to Diabetes through the Application of Registries (RADAR) improved diabetes care and outcomes for First Nations people in Alberta, Canada. The nurse involved in the implementation of RADAR performed two roles in this model of care: research nurse and care coordinator.

Aim: To describe the research nurse's dual role in the implementation and evaluation of RADAR.

Discussion: The research nurse not only documented and collected data in hard-to-reach communities as part of effective research, she also provided remote care coordination to support community healthcare providers using a culturally tailored registry to facilitate population-level care. This dual role required many qualities of nursing leadership and transformation.

Conclusion: The research nurse's two roles contributed to the success of the intervention and were critical to the successful implementation of the model, creating valuable real-world evidence across diverse populations and settings.

Implications for practice: Nurses are well placed to perform research duties alongside engagement and implementation activities. This can enhance the effectiveness and evaluation of healthcare interventions, particularly in community-based interventions within First Nations communities.