Conectar
To develop and test a Family and Community Nursing—Advanced Practice Scale.
A cross-sectional and methodological scale validation design, following classical test theory.
Three phases, the first of which involved scale development, including item generation. Phase two assessed the content validity index. The third phase involved a cross-sectional survey to establish construct validity, content validity, internal consistency reliability, and exploratory factor analysis.
The Family and Community Nursing Advanced Practice Scale has good construct validity, with the final scale consisting of 5 domains and 27 items. This was confirmed by both the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. The Cronbach's Alpha is very good, suggesting that the scale is reliable. When comparing family practice advanced practice nurses with those working in the community, the results show that scores are similar except for clinical reasoning and health promotion, which consistently showed statistically significant higher scores among the family practice nurses. While community nurses scored higher on items in the leading practice domain reflecting their role in a wider team of nurses.
This study developed and psychometrically tested the Family and Community Nursing—Advanced Practice Scale. The scale has good reliability, and analysis of the construct validity reveals five domains of advanced practice among this practitioner group.
The study suggests that advanced practice nurses working in community roles perform similar activities to those working in family practice in the United Kingdom. However, activity related to research was less evident.
The study examined the scope of the advanced practice nurse role in family and community nursing. The study illustrated practice across five domains: clinical care, leading practice, clinical reasoning, health promotion, and ethics. The family practice and wider community roles were largely homogenous, with only two items showing a statistically significant difference in scores.
STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies.
No patient or public contribution.
The current study aimed to identify digital health literacy levels among nurses with respect to their education, role and attitude towards digital technologies.
Cross-sectional study.
Through convenience sampling, all Registered Nurses, managers/leaders and nurse researchers employed in Hospitals, University Hospitals and Districts were recruited and surveyed using an online questionnaire. The data collection tool assessed: (I) demographics, (II) Digital Health Literacy (DHL) with the Health Literacy Survey19 Digital (HLS19-DIGI) instrument including DHL dealing with digital health information (HL-DIGI), interaction with digital resources for health (HL-DIGI-INT) and use of digital devices for health (HL-DIGI-DD); (III) attitudes on the use of digital technologies in clinical practice. The multiple correspondence analysis was applied to identify three clusters for the education/professional role (A, B, C) and three for digital technologies' use (1, 2, 3). The one-way nonparametric analysis of variance (Kruskal–Wallis test) was applied to compare HL-DIGI, HL-DIGI-INT and the HL-DIGI-DD scores among clusters.
Among 551 participants, the median scores of the HL-DIGI, the HL-DIGI-INT and the HL-DIGI-DD questionnaires were 70.2, 72 and 2.00, respectively. The distribution in the clusters ‘educational/professional role’ was A, (58.8%); B, (16.5%); and C, (24.7%). Nurses in a managerial or coordinator role and with a postgraduate degree used digital resources with greater frequency. The distribution in the clusters ‘use of digital technologies’ was: 1, (54.6%); 2, (12.2%); and 3, (33.2%). The HL-DIGI-DD and HL-DIGI scores of clusters 1, 2 and 3 differed significantly.
DHL among nurses is strongly influenced by the education level, professional role, habits and attitude towards digital technologies. Nurses with coordinator roles used digital technologies with greater frequency and had a higher level of DHL.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were used for reporting.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
Trial Registration: Local Ethical Committee of the Polyclinic of Bari (code: DHL7454, date: 21/09/22)
Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) enables consistent and effective healthcare that prioritises patient safety. The competencies of advanced practice nurses (APNs) are essential for implementing EBHC because their professional duties include promoting EBHC.
To identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence concerning the EBHC competence of APNs and associated factors.
A systematic review.
CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medic, ProQuest, and MedNar.
Databases were searched for studies (until 19 September 2023) that examined the EBHC competence and associated factors of APNs were included. Quantitative studies published in English, Swedish and Finnish were included. We followed the JBI methodology for systematic review and performed a narrative synthesis.
The review included 12 quantitative studies, using 15 different instruments, and involved 3163 participants. The quality of the studies was fair. The APNs' EBHC competence areas were categorised into five segments according to the JBI EBHC model. The strongest areas of competencies were in global health as a goal, transferring and implementing evidence, while the weakest were generating and synthesising evidence. Evidence on factors influencing APNs' EBHC competencies was contradictory, but higher levels of education and the presence of an organisational research council may be positively associated with APNs' EBHC competencies.
The development of EBHC competencies for APNs should prioritise evidence generation and synthesis. Elevating the education level of APNs and establishing a Research Council within the organisation can potentially enhance the EBHC competence of APNs.
We should consider weaknesses in EBHC competence when developing education and practical exercises for APNs. This approach will promote the development of APNs' EBHC competence and EBHC implementation in nursing practice.
The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226578), and reporting followed the PRISMA checklist.
None.
FreshRSS 