Conectar
To employ network analysis to identify the central healthcare service needs of people living with HIV (PLWH) for integrated care.
Cross-sectional survey.
A list of healthcare services was identified through literature reviews, expert workshops and validity evaluations by PLWH. A total of 243 PLWH participated at five hospitals and self-reported their need for healthcare services on a four-point Likert scale. Centrality of healthcare service needs was analysed using network analysis.
The mean score for 20 healthcare service needs was 3.53 out of 4. The highest scoring need, “Precaution for interaction between antiretroviral therapy and other drugs,” received a rating of 3.73 but had a centrality of only 0.31. The most central node in the network of healthcare service needs, “Information and coping with opportunistic infections,” had a strength centrality of 1.63 and showed significant relationships with “non-HIV-related medical services (e.g., health check-ups)” and “Regular dental services.” The correlation stability coefficient, which quantifies the stability of centrality, was 0.44 with an acceptable value.
The most central need was information on opportunistic infections that had connections with many nodes in network analysis. By interpreting the relationships between needs, healthcare providers can design interventions with an integrative perspective.
Network visualization provides dynamic relationships between needs that are unknown from the score scale by presenting them graphically and qualitatively.
Using network analysis to interpret need assessment offers an integrated nursing perspective. Coping with opportunistic infection is central to connecting the chain of healthcare. This study highlights the multifaceted understanding of patients' needs that nurses gain when they conduct network analysis.
We adhered to the STROBE checklist.
No patient or public contribution.
(1) To identify, evaluate and summarize evidence about the objectives and characteristics of mentoring programmes for specialized nurses (SNs) or nurse navigators (NNs) and advanced practice nurses (APNs) and (2) to identify the effectiveness of these programmes.
A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines.
From November 2022 until 7 December 2022, four databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library.
Study selection was performed independently by two researchers. Disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Data extraction was undertaken for included studies. Data synthesis was conducted using narrative analysis. Quality appraisal was performed using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
Twelve articles were included, all of which focused on mentoring programmes for APNs. Different forms of mentorship (e.g. (in)formal mentorship, work shadowing, workshops) were reported. Studies reported positive outcomes on job retention (n = 5), job satisfaction (n = 6), skills improvement (n = 7), satisfaction with the programme (n = 7) and confidence improvement (n = 4) among participants of mentoring programmes.
There is a lack of uniformity and consistency in various elements of mentoring programmes. Further research is needed to develop mentoring programmes for both APNs and SNs/NNs in a systematic and theoretically underpinned manner. It is necessary to establish a thorough evaluation methodology, preferably using a mixed methods design that includes both a qualitative process evaluation and a comprehensive outcome evaluation using validated questionnaires, taking into account the NN/APN, the interprofessional team and organizational level.
The synthesis of evidence may be useful to organizations developing and implementing mentoring programmes for both SN/NN and APN. The development of a mentoring programme for nursing experts should be considered a complex intervention that requires theoretical frameworks and contextual considerations.
Not applicable, as no patients or public were involved.
FreshRSS 