Technology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Zlamal, Jaroslav; Gjevjon, Edith Roth; Fossum, Mariann; Solberg, Marianne Trygg; Steindal, Simen Alexander; Strandell-Laine, Camilla; Larsen, Marie Hamilton; Nes, Andrea Aparecida Gonçalves
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version

View/ Open
Date
2022Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
- Artikler [247]
- Publikasjoner fra CRIStin [209]
Original version
10.2196/37380Abstract
Background: Nursing education has increasingly focused on critical thinking among nursing students, as critical thinking is a
desired outcome of nursing education. Particular attention is given to the potential of technological tools in guiding nursing
students to stimulate the development of critical thinking; however, the general landscape, facilitators, and challenges of these
guidance models remain unexplored, and no previous mixed methods systematic review on the subject has been identified.
Objective: This study aims to synthesize existing evidence on technology-supported guidance models used in nursing education
to stimulate the development of critical thinking in nursing students in clinical practice.
Methods: This mixed methods systematic review adopted a convergent, integrated design to facilitate thematic synthesis. This
study followed the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis.
Results: We identified 3 analytical themes: learning processes implemented to stimulate critical thinking, organization of the
learning process to stimulate critical thinking, and factors influencing the perception of the learning process. We also identified
4 guidance models, all based on facilitator or preceptorship models using tailored instructional or learning strategies and one or
several technological tools that were either generic or custom-made for specific outcomes. The main facilitators of these
technology-supported guidance models were nurse educators or nurse preceptors, and the main challenges in using
technology-supported guidance models were the stress associated with technical difficulties or increased cognitive load.
Conclusions: Although we were able to identify 4 technology-supported guidance models, our results indicate a research gap
regarding the use of these models in nursing education, with the specific aim of stimulating the development of critical thinking.
Both nurse preceptors and nurse educators play a crucial role in the development of critical thinking among nursing students, and
technology is essential for such development. However, technology-supported guidance models should be supervised to mitigate
the associated stress.