dc.contributor.author | Zlamal, Jaroslav | |
dc.contributor.author | Gjevjon, Edith Roth | |
dc.contributor.author | Fossum, Mariann | |
dc.contributor.author | Solberg, Marianne Trygg | |
dc.contributor.author | Steindal, Simen Alexander | |
dc.contributor.author | Strandell-Laine, Camilla | |
dc.contributor.author | Larsen, Marie Hamilton | |
dc.contributor.author | Nes, Andrea Aparecida Gonçalves | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-12-27T08:23:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-12-27T08:23:18Z | |
dc.date.created | 2022-06-13T13:37:27Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3039490 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.rights | Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no | * |
dc.subject | Sykepleierutdanningsforskning | en_US |
dc.subject | Klinisk praksis | en_US |
dc.title | Technology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Review | en_US |
dc.title.alternative | Technology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Review | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.description.version | publishedVersion | en_US |
dc.source.volume | 5 | en_US |
dc.source.journal | JMIR Nursing | en_US |
dc.source.issue | 1 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2196/37380 | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 2031435 | |
cristin.ispublished | true | |
cristin.fulltext | original | |
cristin.qualitycode | 1 | |