Conectar
Globally, doctorally-prepared nurses have pursued career paths centered on research and academic leadership. In the United States, alongside the PhD in nursing, there exists a distinct educational pathway, the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), which emphasizes clinical practice. However, the actual career trajectories of individuals from both groups often diverge from these traditional expectations, prompting questions about how their roles are integrated within academic and clinical environments.
This systematic review aims to critically examine the career pathways of nurses with doctoral degrees, with a focus on the intersection of research and clinical practice.
Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of five databases (PROQUEST Nursing, Scopus, EBSCO, EMBASE, and PubMed) was conducted on October 14, 2024. We identified 6003 references, with 23 studies ultimately meeting inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings.
PhD and DNP nurses in the US exhibit overlapping yet nontraditional career paths, with PhDs taking on clinical leadership and DNPs entering academia. Globally, PhD nurses often hold hybrid roles in research, education, and limited clinical practice. Across contexts, both groups face role misalignment and identity challenges, including marginalization and limited institutional support.
The findings highlight the blurring of traditional boundaries between PhD and DNP career paths, underscoring the need for flexible career models that combine academic and clinical practice as a viable option to address these challenges.
The review was registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number)
by Jette Hinrichsen, Vincent Quinten, Rebecca Diekmann
ObjectiveThis study aimed at validating the dietary recording functionality of the NuMob-e-App, developed for adults aged 70 and above, against the 24-hour dietary recall reference standard.
Methods104 independently living adults (mean age 75.8 ± 4.1 years; 58% female) from northwest Germany participated. They recorded their dietary intake on three consecutive days using the App. In parallel, we conducted a structured 24-hour dietary recall via telephone. Nutritional intake was analysed for energy, macronutrients, and food groups defined by the German Nutrition Society. Data were analysed for equivalence using Two One-Sided Tests (TOST), agreement using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and systematic differences using Bland-Altman plots.
ResultsEquivalence could be shown in 20 of the 44 compared variables, ICC variated between 0.677 to 0.951 for the four macronutrients and between 0.714 and 0.968 for the seven food groups. The Bland-Altman plots showed tendency to underestimation by the app in most variables and relatively narrow limits of agreement.
ConclusionsThe NuMob-e-App demonstrated good relative validity for assessing energy, carbohydrate, and protein intake, as well as selected food groups in older adults. While equivalence was not achieved across all 44 variables, agreement was particularly strong for protein and beverages. A general tendency toward intake underestimation by the app was observed. These findings support the app’s potential for use in preventive dietary self-monitoring among seniors.
Couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility are advised to start mild ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination (MOH-IUI) as a primary treatment. Natural feedback mechanisms and hormone release are affected by artificially stimulated cycles and induced ovulation. Additional luteal support could positively affect progesterone patterns in the luteal phase. The LUMO study evaluates whether the addition of exogenous progesterone in the luteal phase following MOH-IUI treatment cycle will improve pregnancy and live birth rates.
A multicentre randomised, double-blind, controlled trial will be conducted in Dutch fertility clinics, academic and non-academic hospitals. There are two treatment arms: group A progesterone luteal phase support; group B placebo, without crossover. All initiated MOH-IUI cycles within 6 months after randomisation are included (study period). Participants will start study medication, applying a daily dosage of 2dd 300 mg progesterone (Utrogestan) or 2dd 300 mg placebo in vaginal capsules on the second day after the IUI procedure. Treatment is continued until the onset of menstruation, a negative pregnancy test (IUI+14 days), a miscarriage or until 7 weeks of gestation in case of a viable pregnancy. Follow-up ends at 12 months after the end of study period (18 months after study randomisation). The primary outcome is cumulative pregnancy rate, achieved within 6 months after randomisation, leading to live birth. A total of 1008 patients (504 patients in each group) will be included.
The study was approved by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects on 30 January 2023. All participating sites have the approval of the local Board of Directors to participate in the LUMO study. An informed consent form will be signed by all participants. Study results will be presented at (inter)national conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. It is expected that the results of this trial will be used to draft national guidelines on this issue.
The study is registered in the EU CTIS trial register (2022-501534-33-00), the Dutch trial registry (registration number: LTR 24508), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05080569) and the WHO registry (universal trial number: U1111-1280-9461).
To explore perceptions regarding the approved and actual prescribed doses of protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) in clinical practice in the European Union among medicine regulators and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semistructured interviews, continuing until thematic saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a combined deductive-inductive approach. Deductive main analytical themes were derived from the theoretical framework of questioning-based policy design, namely problem sensing, problem categorisation and problem decomposition. Subthemes were generated inductively and could coherently be situated within these main analytical themes.
Interviews were held online or in person at a location convenient for the interviewee, depending on the participant’s preference.
Seven medicine regulators involved in the regulation of cancer medicines—including PKIs—and 10 HCPs prescribing PKIs in clinical practice, from various countries within Europe, were included.
Regulators highlighted insufficient attention to optimal dose finding, yielding approved doses often based on outdated maximum tolerated dose concepts, leading to uncertainties in efficacy and safety. HCPs reported using alternative dosing strategies in clinical practice to improve tolerability and quality of life (QoL) but noted a lack of robust evidence to guide such adjustments and faced legal constraints to deviate from the approved dose. Participants emphasised the need for improved pre-approval and post-approval dose optimisation to improve safety, enhance QoL and bridge gaps between trial data and real-world patient diversity.
Collaborative efforts involving multistakeholders including HCPs, regulators, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, governments and patient representatives are essential to advance dose optimisation and improve patient-centric outcomes, with further research needed to understand these stakeholders’ perspectives.
To explore what healthcare staff and staff in pharmacies experiences, as challenges, and possibilities in handling and use medications by foreign-born persons or their relatives, and how necessary information is exchanged between different units in the healthcare chain to prevent medication errors.
A qualitative explorative single-unit case study in a primary healthcare centre, with connected home care and pharmacies in an immigrant-dense area.
Individual semi-structured interviews with 17 respondents, including pharmacists, physicians and registered nurses, were conducted between May and December 2022, in Sweden. Inductive qualitative content analysis was applied.
Six categories were identified: limited knowledge about medications, lack of knowledge about the Swedish system for medication prescriptions and pharmacy regulations, insufficient time to develop trusting relations, communication to support medication management, tools for facilitating safe use of medications and problems in exchange of information in the healthcare chain.
Good communication is both a challenge and a prerequisite for safe medication management by well-informed patients. To ensure patient safety, it is crucial to establish ways to communicate with patients about their medications, regardless of their language skills. Improving communication within the healthcare chain is essential to prevent medication errors.
Understanding the complexity of medication management and preventing medication errors requires staff to communicate effectively with patients at all steps in the healthcare chain to identify their informational and educational needs.
This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the importance of communication within the healthcare chain, including prescribing physicians, nurses, pharmacists and patients, to prevent medication errors.
COREQ checklist.
This study focused on staff at a healthcare centre and two pharmacies.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective.
A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial.
The study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden.
Participants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0–J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0–I50.9).
224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group.
Both the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon.
The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK –68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant.
The results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care.
NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.
To describe the usage patterns of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) using a person-centred telehealth and e-health intervention.
An exploratory, descriptive, observational study embedded in the "Person-centred care at a distance (PROTECT)" randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03183817) as part of a process evaluation. Data on intervention use and time spent on the intervention were collected. Descriptive statistics were calculated.
Participants were recruited from nine public primary healthcare facilities located in various areas of Gothenburg, Sweden.
110 patients participating in the intervention group in the PROTECT trial were included. Participants were diagnosed with chronic heart failure (CHF, n=42), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, n=56) or both (n=12). They were 33–93 years old (mean 71 years).
A secondary outcome report on resource use.
The 6-month-long intervention was performed as an add-on to standard care and comprised person-centred telephone support and access to a digital platform. Per-protocol use included co-creation of a health plan via the telephone and use of the digital platform at least once. Forms of use were tailored to the preferences and needs of the patients.
Most intervention activities took place in the first 3 months of the intervention. Most patients used a combination of phone and digital support, spending most of their time using the digital platform. Overall, patients and HCPs spent 6 and 2.5 hours/patient using the intervention, respectively. Of this time, 1.5 hours involved synchronous communication through phone calls, with health-plan calls averaging 77 min.
The intervention usage patterns of patients and HCPs differed. Despite HCPs being accessible when required, patients dedicated most of their time to self-care practices. Based on time distribution data, 15 full-time HCPs could potentially co-create, document and follow-up on health plans for 10 000 patients under study conditions.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03183817.
To compare the quality and time efficiency of physician-written summaries with customised large language model (LLM)-generated medical summaries integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) in a non-English clinical environment.
Cross-sectional non-inferiority validation study.
Tertiary academic hospital.
52 physicians from 8 specialties at a large Dutch academic hospital participated, either in writing summaries (n=42) or evaluating them (n=10).
Physician writers wrote summaries of 50 patient records. LLM-generated summaries were created for the same records using an EHR-integrated LLM. An independent, blinded panel of physician evaluators compared physician-written summaries to LLM-generated summaries.
Primary outcome measures were completeness, correctness and conciseness (on a 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were preference and trust, and time to generate either the physician-written or LLM-generated summary.
The completeness and correctness of LLM-generated summaries did not differ significantly from physician-written summaries. However, LLM summaries were less concise (3.0 vs 3.5, p=0.001). Overall evaluation scores were similar (3.4 vs 3.3, p=0.373), with 57% of evaluators preferring LLM-generated summaries. Trust in both summary types was comparable, and interobserver variability showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.975). Physicians took an average of 7 min per summary, while LLMs completed the same task in just 15.7 s.
LLM-generated summaries are comparable to physician-written summaries in completeness and correctness, although slightly less concise. With a clear time-saving benefit, LLMs could help reduce clinicians’ administrative burden without compromising summary quality.
FreshRSS 