卫生保健专业人员学术实践的特点:范围审查方案

Marco Zaccagnini, A. Bussières, A. West, J. Boruff, A. Thomas
{"title":"卫生保健专业人员学术实践的特点:范围审查方案","authors":"Marco Zaccagnini, A. Bussières, A. West, J. Boruff, A. Thomas","doi":"10.29390/cjrt-2020-007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Health care professionals are expected to embrace and enact the scholarly practitioner role. Scholarly practitioners demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice through continuous learning, engagement in evidence-informed decision-making, contributions to scholarship, and knowledge translation. However, the specific features and requirements associated with this role are not uniform. The absence of well-defined and delineated conceptualizations of scholarly practice and the scarcity of empirical research on how scholarly practice is operationalized contribute to a lack of a shared understanding of this complex role. Aim The purpose of this scoping review is to map the breadth and depth of the literature on what is known about scholarly practice in licensed health care professionals. Methods Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage scoping review framework will be used to examine the breadth and depth of the literature on the definitions and conceptualizations of the scholar role in health care professionals. We will conduct a comprehensive search from inception to present in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL using scholarly practitioner terms and related synonyms, including a grey literature search. Following a calibration exercise, two independent reviewers will screen retrieved papers for inclusion and extract relevant data. Included papers will: (i) explore, describe, or define scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in the licensed health care professionals; (ii) be conceptual and/or theoretical in nature; (iii) use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies; and (iv) be published in English or French. Numeric and thematic analysis will characterize the data and address the research objectives.","PeriodicalId":9533,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR","volume":"31 1","pages":"38 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Features of scholarly practice in health care professionals: A scoping review protocol\",\"authors\":\"Marco Zaccagnini, A. Bussières, A. West, J. Boruff, A. Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.29390/cjrt-2020-007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction Health care professionals are expected to embrace and enact the scholarly practitioner role. Scholarly practitioners demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice through continuous learning, engagement in evidence-informed decision-making, contributions to scholarship, and knowledge translation. However, the specific features and requirements associated with this role are not uniform. The absence of well-defined and delineated conceptualizations of scholarly practice and the scarcity of empirical research on how scholarly practice is operationalized contribute to a lack of a shared understanding of this complex role. Aim The purpose of this scoping review is to map the breadth and depth of the literature on what is known about scholarly practice in licensed health care professionals. Methods Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage scoping review framework will be used to examine the breadth and depth of the literature on the definitions and conceptualizations of the scholar role in health care professionals. We will conduct a comprehensive search from inception to present in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL using scholarly practitioner terms and related synonyms, including a grey literature search. Following a calibration exercise, two independent reviewers will screen retrieved papers for inclusion and extract relevant data. Included papers will: (i) explore, describe, or define scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in the licensed health care professionals; (ii) be conceptual and/or theoretical in nature; (iii) use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies; and (iv) be published in English or French. Numeric and thematic analysis will characterize the data and address the research objectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"38 - 41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2020-007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2020-007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

卫生保健专业人员有望拥抱和制定学术从业者的角色。学术实践者通过持续学习、参与循证决策、对学术的贡献和知识翻译,展示了对卓越实践的终身承诺。然而,与此角色相关的特定功能和需求并不统一。缺乏学术实践的明确定义和描述的概念化,以及缺乏关于学术实践如何运作的实证研究,导致缺乏对这一复杂角色的共同理解。目的:这一范围审查的目的是绘制的广度和深度,什么是已知的学术实践,在有执照的卫生保健专业人员的文献。方法Arksey和O 'Malley的6阶段范围审查框架将被用来检查关于卫生保健专业人员学者角色的定义和概念化的文献的广度和深度。我们将在MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid)和CINAHL中使用学术从业者术语和相关同义词进行从开始到现在的全面搜索,包括灰色文献搜索。校正后,两名独立审稿人将筛选检索到的论文,并提取相关数据。收录的论文将:(i)探索、描述或定义学术实践、学者或学术从业者,和/或相关概念;(ii)属概念性及/或理论性;(iii)使用定量、定性或混合方法;(iv)以英文或法文出版。数字和专题分析将描述数据的特征并解决研究目标。
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
Features of scholarly practice in health care professionals: A scoping review protocol
Introduction Health care professionals are expected to embrace and enact the scholarly practitioner role. Scholarly practitioners demonstrate a lifelong commitment to excellence in practice through continuous learning, engagement in evidence-informed decision-making, contributions to scholarship, and knowledge translation. However, the specific features and requirements associated with this role are not uniform. The absence of well-defined and delineated conceptualizations of scholarly practice and the scarcity of empirical research on how scholarly practice is operationalized contribute to a lack of a shared understanding of this complex role. Aim The purpose of this scoping review is to map the breadth and depth of the literature on what is known about scholarly practice in licensed health care professionals. Methods Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage scoping review framework will be used to examine the breadth and depth of the literature on the definitions and conceptualizations of the scholar role in health care professionals. We will conduct a comprehensive search from inception to present in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL using scholarly practitioner terms and related synonyms, including a grey literature search. Following a calibration exercise, two independent reviewers will screen retrieved papers for inclusion and extract relevant data. Included papers will: (i) explore, describe, or define scholarly practice, scholar or scholarly practitioner, and/or related concepts in the licensed health care professionals; (ii) be conceptual and/or theoretical in nature; (iii) use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies; and (iv) be published in English or French. Numeric and thematic analysis will characterize the data and address the research objectives.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A cross-sectional survey on the effects of ambient temperature and humidity on health outcomes in individuals with chronic respiratory disease Impact of telephone follow-up on COPD outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation patients: A randomized clinical trial A survey on the attitudinal differences between acute and community settings Strategies to achieve adherence to prone positioning in awake COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal oxygen. A case series Winning Posters from the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists 2022 Annual Conference
×
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