Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorZlamal, Jaroslav
dc.contributor.authorGjevjon, Edith Roth
dc.contributor.authorFossum, Mariann
dc.contributor.authorSolberg, Marianne Trygg
dc.contributor.authorSteindal, Simen Alexander
dc.contributor.authorStrandell-Laine, Camilla
dc.contributor.authorLarsen, Marie Hamilton
dc.contributor.authorNes, Andrea Aparecida Gonçalves
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-27T08:23:18Z
dc.date.available2022-12-27T08:23:18Z
dc.date.created2022-06-13T13:37:27Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3039490
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectSykepleierutdanningsforskningen_US
dc.subjectKlinisk praksisen_US
dc.titleTechnology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Reviewen_US
dc.title.alternativeTechnology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Reviewen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.volume5en_US
dc.source.journalJMIR Nursingen_US
dc.source.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2196/37380
dc.identifier.cristin2031435
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal