Conectar
The purpose of this scoping review is to map and summarise the current peer-reviewed literature on inequities in doctoral nursing education, with a specific focus on populations affected, barriers, facilitators and strategies to support equity in doctoral nursing education.
This scoping review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
A comprehensive search for empirical evidence was completed using four databases: CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC and Google Scholar. A systematic screening process was applied, and data were extracted and charted guided by the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework.
Databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2025.
A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies focused on racial/ethnic minoritized populations, and one focused on first-generation doctoral students. Common barriers included experiences of microaggression, systemic racism, lack of funding and feelings of isolation. Common facilitators were faculty mentorship, financial support, peer networks and targeted recruitment programs.
Inequities remain in doctoral nursing education, particularly for racial/ethnic minoritized populations. Although some effective interventions were identified, significant gaps exist in understanding how to support diverse doctoral nursing students, especially for those with intersecting identities.
Addressing inequities in doctoral nursing education can enhance the diversity of the nursing workforce and faculty, promote inclusive academic environments and contribute to health equity.
Persistent inequities in access and experience among underrepresented groups in doctoral nursing education. Main findings: Key structural and social barriers persist, though several promising strategies have emerged. Impact area: Academic institutions, doctoral program designers and nurse leaders.
This study adheres to the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. This study did not involve patients or the public in its design, conduct or reporting.
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a vocational rehabilitation intervention (Return to Work After Trauma—ROWTATE), remotely to individuals recovering from traumatic injuries. The primary objectives were to assess therapists’ training and competence, adapt the intervention and training for remote delivery and assess the feasibility and fidelity of remote delivery to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial.
A mixed-methods feasibility study incorporating (1) telerehabilitation qualitative literature review, (2) qualitative interviews preintervention and postintervention with therapists and patients, (3) a team objective structured clinical examination to assess competency, (4) usefulness of training, attitudes towards (15-item Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale) and confidence in (4-item Evidence Based Practice Confidence Scale) evidence-based practice, intervention delivery confidence (8-bespoke questions) and intervention behaviour determinants (51-items Theoretical Domains Framework) and (5) single-arm intervention delivery feasibility study.
The study was conducted in two UK Major Trauma Centres. The intervention and training were adapted for remote delivery due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Therapists: Seven occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs) were trained, and six participated in competency assessment. Seven OTs and CPs participated in preintervention interviews and surveys; six completed post-intervention interviews and four completed post-training surveys. Patients: 10 patients were enrolled in the single-arm feasibility study and 4 of these participated in postintervention qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria included therapists involved in vocational rehabilitation delivery and patients admitted to major trauma centres. Exclusion criteria included participation in other vocational rehabilitation trials or those who had returned to work or education for at least 80% of preinjury hours. Intervention: The ROWTATE vocational rehabilitation intervention was delivered remotely by trained OTs and CPs. Training included competency assessments, mentoring and adaptation for telerehabilitation. The intervention was delivered over multiple sessions, with content tailored to individual patient needs.
Therapists found the training useful, reported positive attitudes (Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale mean=2.9 (SD 0.9)) and high levels of confidence in delivering evidence-based practice (range 75%–100%) and the ROWTATE intervention (range 80%–100%). Intervention barriers identified pretraining became facilitators post-training. Half the therapists needed additional support post-training through mentoring or additional training. The intervention and training were successfully adapted for remote delivery. High levels of fidelity (intervention components delivered: OTs=84.5%, CPs=92.9%) and session attendance rates were found (median: OT=97%, CP=100%). Virtually all sessions were delivered remotely (OT=98%, CP=100%). The intervention was acceptable to patients and therapists; both considered face-to-face delivery where necessary was important.
The ROWTATE intervention was delivered remotely with high fidelity and attendance and was acceptable to patients and therapists. Definitive trial key changes include modifying therapist training, competency assessment, face-to-face intervention delivery where necessary and addressing lower fidelity intervention components.
To conduct a synthesis of existing empirical and grey literature to identify the contexts and mechanisms that enable the adoption, offer, uptake and return of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in the primary care pathway in England, UK, for patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC). From this, develop a theory about how specific programme activities lead to certain outcomes.
A realist synthesis.
Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and grey literature sources until end of July 2023.
The purpose of the work was to determine how different factors interact within a health system to optimise the approach to implementing and using symptomatic FIT (sFIT) in clinical practice for patient benefit. The criteria used to bound the scope of the synthesis included date (published between 2017 and July 2023), exposure of interest (sFIT in the primary care pathway for patients with signs or symptoms of suspected CRC), geographic location of study (countries that make up the UK), language (English) and participants (adults). Any study design and type of publication was considered.
Given the recognised lack of literature on the implementation of sFIT, it was crucial to include insights from grey literature. To do this, key national groups and organisations—involved or related to this subject—were methodically identified and appropriate papers and reports identified.
A thematic approach was used to identify relevant data in included records and allow realist insights to be obtained. Inductive and deductive coding enabled detection of key data. Arguments were generated and developed into context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs). Iteratively, an initial list of 38 CMOCs was refined to 14 themes and 19 CMOCs. These were then structured to create a multifaceted, multilevel realist synthesis programme theory.
Systematic searching led to the full appraisal of 99 records to determine suitability of each to confirm, refute or help develop theory. Studies were assessed for rigour and relevance to inform selection. The process resulted in 45 records being chosen for inclusion, of which 28 were from database searches and 17 from grey literature sources.
The key contexts and mechanisms that help optimise adoption, offer, uptake and return of sFIT have been elucidated (although partially). These can be broadly summarised into the 10 ‘Cs’: creating a compelling Case and Conditions for change, reaching Consensus through Collaborative working, fostering a Culture that values Clinical judgement, building Confidence by developing Capabilities and, finally, ensuring Clarity and Coherence of both practical processes and safety netting procedures.
Fundamentally, optimising the adoption, offer, uptake and return of sFIT in primary care for patients with signs or symptoms of suspected CRC is predicated on developing the acceptability of this initiative to every stakeholder at every level within a health system.
The ROWTATE intervention helps people experiencing trauma to return to work (RTW) through vocational rehabilitation (VR) support from occupational therapists (OTs) and clinical psychologists (CPs). This study aims to explore and understand the acceptability of VR after traumatic injury for patients, therapists and employers.
Qualitative interviews in eight major trauma regions, UK.
Interviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders—15 patients, 15 therapists and 6 employers. Data were analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability.
Stakeholders understood the aim of the intervention was to support people to RTW and perceived it as effective in achieving this. Patients and therapists understood the benefits of working with a combination of occupational therapy and clinical psychology. The intervention fits with the values of patients wanting to recover, therapists wanting to offer support and line managers wanting to meet employer and employee needs.
Patients reported they could not have achieved RTW without the intervention, and their therapist helped them feel less alone. Therapists felt that their work was rewarding, effective and had good outcomes. Patients perceived remote delivery as less burdensome than attending in person. Therapists felt they wasted time on non-patient activity, such as (re-)arranging appointments.
Employers discussed the difficulty of balancing employer and employee needs and managing uncertainty. Some workplace policies lacked flexibility, and without the ROWTATE intervention, employers lacked confidence in supporting employees RTW.
A VR intervention delivered remotely by OTs and CPs is acceptable to patients, therapists and employers.
Various instruments exist for assessing agitation and broader non-cognitive symptoms in dementia (NCSD). However, the feasibility and practicality of using these instruments in residential settings with people with advanced dementia have not been evaluated. The aim of our review is to identify the available evidence regarding tools for measuring (1) Agitation and (2) NCSD in people with advanced dementia in residential settings, in terms of use (feasibility and psychometric properties) in this population.
Literature searches will be carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature databases and relevant websites will also be explored for guidance documents, task reports, etc. A three-stage screening process will be adopted and will include pilot testing of source selectors. Two reviewers will independently perform title and abstract screening, then full text screening, against the defined eligibility criteria. This scoping review protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/p7g86).
Due to the nature of the scoping review, ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at international conferences.
Pharmacogenomic testing could potentially reduce the number of adverse drug reactions and improve treatment outcomes through tailoring treatment to an individual’s genetic makeup. Despite its benefits and the ambitions to integrate into routine care, the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care settings remains limited. This study aims to qualitatively explore the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the UK National Health Service (NHS) primary care setting and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of service-delivery implementation by comparing different HCPs’ models of care.
This study consists of three workstreams (WS). WS1 is semi-structured interviews with General Practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and patients (24 participants) to explore implementation issues, including the perceived barriers and facilitators to delivering a pharmacogenomic service. WS2 consists of focus groups (between 24–36 participants) with genomic experts to develop practical pharmacogenomic-guided clinical pathways for primary care. WS3 will estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing when led by different HCPs incorporating parameters from the literature, expert opinions, as well as data from WS1 and WS2.
Thematic analysis will be used to analyse the qualitative data from WS1 and WS2, mapping findings onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, which will also be used as the theoretical framework. WS3 will be a decision-analytic model developed in Microsoft Excel to compare the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-led, GP-led, nurse-led or multidisciplinary pathways.
This study has been approved by the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (24/PR/1088). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with NHS policymakers and Genomics England.
FreshRSS 