研究基础护理教科书的包容性和排他性内容:定向定性内容分析

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Professional Nursing Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.08.013
Eleonor Pusey-Reid , Cassandra P. Mombrun , Mirza J. Lugo-Neris , Jean M. Bernhardt , Kevin Berner , John Wong , Callie Watkins Liu , Virginia King , Rachael H. Salguero , Karen L. Hunt , Mary E. Samost , Danielle T. Walker , Jessica Spissinger , Selam Shah , M. Elaine Tagliareni
{"title":"研究基础护理教科书的包容性和排他性内容:定向定性内容分析","authors":"Eleonor Pusey-Reid ,&nbsp;Cassandra P. Mombrun ,&nbsp;Mirza J. Lugo-Neris ,&nbsp;Jean M. Bernhardt ,&nbsp;Kevin Berner ,&nbsp;John Wong ,&nbsp;Callie Watkins Liu ,&nbsp;Virginia King ,&nbsp;Rachael H. Salguero ,&nbsp;Karen L. Hunt ,&nbsp;Mary E. Samost ,&nbsp;Danielle T. Walker ,&nbsp;Jessica Spissinger ,&nbsp;Selam Shah ,&nbsp;M. Elaine Tagliareni","doi":"10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Growing awareness of social inequities and injustices in education highlights the urgent need to address harmful mechanisms, policies, and norms within health education curricula and systems.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study examines inclusivity and exclusivity content in four fundamental nursing textbooks and contributes to the broader discourse on fostering equitable health education.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A Directed Qualitative Content Analysis on 32 chapters from four fundamental nursing textbooks was systematically conducted. Seven codes within inclusivity and exclusivity themes were deductively developed from the literature. Inclusivity codes included equity language and contextualized race-based prevalence. Exclusivity codes included normalizing Whiteness in assessment, stigmatizing and negative descriptors, race-based prevalence without context, cisgenderism, and othering. Two trained analysts independently reviewed the chapters, assigning texts to these codes. Discrepancies were resolved by team consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 118 inclusivity instances: equity language (n = 109) and race-based prevalence with context (n = 9). Exclusivity codes were more prevalent (n = 642), including normalizing Whiteness (n = 398), stigmatizing descriptors (n = 106), cisgenderism (n = 59), and othering (n = 32).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The study highlights inclusive language in fundamental nursing textbooks but reveals significant exclusive language perpetuating negative generalizations, including marginalized identities and race prevalence without context. This content undermines person-centered care and hinders understanding the complex interplay between intersectionality, social justice, and social determinants of health.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professional Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722324001406/pdfft?md5=8cc898e804a546ad23aa49a0279953e0&pid=1-s2.0-S8755722324001406-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining fundamental nursing textbooks for inclusivity and exclusivity content: A directed qualitative content analysis\",\"authors\":\"Eleonor Pusey-Reid ,&nbsp;Cassandra P. Mombrun ,&nbsp;Mirza J. Lugo-Neris ,&nbsp;Jean M. Bernhardt ,&nbsp;Kevin Berner ,&nbsp;John Wong ,&nbsp;Callie Watkins Liu ,&nbsp;Virginia King ,&nbsp;Rachael H. Salguero ,&nbsp;Karen L. Hunt ,&nbsp;Mary E. Samost ,&nbsp;Danielle T. Walker ,&nbsp;Jessica Spissinger ,&nbsp;Selam Shah ,&nbsp;M. Elaine Tagliareni\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.08.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Growing awareness of social inequities and injustices in education highlights the urgent need to address harmful mechanisms, policies, and norms within health education curricula and systems.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study examines inclusivity and exclusivity content in four fundamental nursing textbooks and contributes to the broader discourse on fostering equitable health education.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A Directed Qualitative Content Analysis on 32 chapters from four fundamental nursing textbooks was systematically conducted. Seven codes within inclusivity and exclusivity themes were deductively developed from the literature. Inclusivity codes included equity language and contextualized race-based prevalence. Exclusivity codes included normalizing Whiteness in assessment, stigmatizing and negative descriptors, race-based prevalence without context, cisgenderism, and othering. Two trained analysts independently reviewed the chapters, assigning texts to these codes. Discrepancies were resolved by team consensus.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 118 inclusivity instances: equity language (n = 109) and race-based prevalence with context (n = 9). Exclusivity codes were more prevalent (n = 642), including normalizing Whiteness (n = 398), stigmatizing descriptors (n = 106), cisgenderism (n = 59), and othering (n = 32).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The study highlights inclusive language in fundamental nursing textbooks but reveals significant exclusive language perpetuating negative generalizations, including marginalized identities and race prevalence without context. This content undermines person-centered care and hinders understanding the complex interplay between intersectionality, social justice, and social determinants of health.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Professional Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722324001406/pdfft?md5=8cc898e804a546ad23aa49a0279953e0&pid=1-s2.0-S8755722324001406-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Professional Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722324001406\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professional Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722324001406","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景人们日益意识到教育中的社会不平等和不公正,这突出表明迫切需要解决健康教育课程和系统中的有害机制、政策和规范。从文献中演绎出了包容性和排他性主题中的七个代码。包容性代码包括公平语言和基于种族的背景化流行。排他性代码包括在评估中使白种人正常化、污名化和负面描述、无背景的基于种族的普遍性、顺性别主义和他者化。两名训练有素的分析师独立审阅了各章节,并为这些代码分配了文本。结果 共有 118 个包容性实例:公平语言(109 个)和有背景的种族偏见(9 个)。该研究强调了基础护理教科书中的包容性语言,但也揭示了大量的排斥性语言,这些语言延续了负面的概括,包括边缘化身份和无背景的种族普遍性。这些内容破坏了以人为本的护理,阻碍了对交叉性、社会正义和健康的社会决定因素之间复杂相互作用的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Examining fundamental nursing textbooks for inclusivity and exclusivity content: A directed qualitative content analysis

Background

Growing awareness of social inequities and injustices in education highlights the urgent need to address harmful mechanisms, policies, and norms within health education curricula and systems.

Purpose

This study examines inclusivity and exclusivity content in four fundamental nursing textbooks and contributes to the broader discourse on fostering equitable health education.

Methods

A Directed Qualitative Content Analysis on 32 chapters from four fundamental nursing textbooks was systematically conducted. Seven codes within inclusivity and exclusivity themes were deductively developed from the literature. Inclusivity codes included equity language and contextualized race-based prevalence. Exclusivity codes included normalizing Whiteness in assessment, stigmatizing and negative descriptors, race-based prevalence without context, cisgenderism, and othering. Two trained analysts independently reviewed the chapters, assigning texts to these codes. Discrepancies were resolved by team consensus.

Results

A total of 118 inclusivity instances: equity language (n = 109) and race-based prevalence with context (n = 9). Exclusivity codes were more prevalent (n = 642), including normalizing Whiteness (n = 398), stigmatizing descriptors (n = 106), cisgenderism (n = 59), and othering (n = 32).

Conclusion

The study highlights inclusive language in fundamental nursing textbooks but reveals significant exclusive language perpetuating negative generalizations, including marginalized identities and race prevalence without context. This content undermines person-centered care and hinders understanding the complex interplay between intersectionality, social justice, and social determinants of health.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
8.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: The Journal will accept articles that focus on baccalaureate and higher degree nursing education, educational research, policy related to education, and education and practice partnerships. Reports of original work, research, reviews, insightful descriptions, and policy papers focusing on baccalaureate and graduate nursing education will be published.
期刊最新文献
Expanding clinical placement opportunities: Exploring night shift experiences for nursing students Newly graduated and nurse resident competencies: Perceptions of nurse faculty and acute care hospital leaders in the state of Maryland Navigating challenges and cultivating connections: Faculty experiences teaching RN-BSN students Competence of the academic clinical nurse educator: A concept analysis Examining the influence of social support and resilience on academic self-efficacy and learning outcomes in pre-licensure student nurses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1