Scand J Caring Sci; 2011; 25; 404–409 
 Who uses nursing theory? A univariate descriptive analysis of five years’ research articles Background:  Since the early 1950s, nursing leaders have worked diligently to build the Scientific Discipline of Nursing, integrating Theory, Research and Practice. Recently, the role of theory has again come into question, with some scientists claiming nurses are not using theory to guide their research, with which to improve practice. Aims:  The purposes of this descriptive study were to determine: (i) Were nursing scientists’ research articles in leading nursing journals based on theory? (ii) If so, were the theories nursing theories or borrowed theories? (iii) Were the theories integrated into the studies, or were they used as organizing frameworks? Methods:  Research articles from seven top ISI journals were analysed, excluding regularly featured columns, meta‐analyses, secondary analysis, case studies and literature reviews. The authors used King’s dynamic Interacting system and Goal Attainment Theory as an organizing framework. They developed consensus on how to identify the integration of theory, searching the Title, Abstract, Aims, Methods, Discussion and Conclusion sections of each research article, whether quantitative or qualitative. Results:  Of 2857 articles published in the seven journals from 2002 to, and including, 2006, 2184 (76%) were research articles. Of the 837 (38%) authors who used theories, 460 (55%) used nursing theories, 377 (45%) used other theories: 776 (93%) of those who used theory integrated it into their studies, including qualitative studies, while 51 (7%) reported they used theory as an organizing framework for their studies. Closer analysis revealed theory principles were implicitly implied, even in research reports that did not explicitly report theory usage. Conclusions:  Increasing numbers of nursing research articles (though not percentagewise) continue to be guided by theory, and not always by nursing theory. Newer nursing research methods may not explicitly state the use of nursing theory, though it is implicitly implied.

Background: Breakfast is often said to be the most important meal of the day, there is a significant evidence of positive academic effects due to breakfast consumption. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to examine whether the health education intervention about breakfast for parents leads to improvement in students' breakfast intake and their academic achievements, it also aims at investigating the effect of students' gender and class on their performance. Methods: The sample of the study was selected by random sampling technique. It consisted of (234) students, (115) male and (119) female students at Fatima Bent Al Yaman school for girls and Khaled Ben Al Walid school for boys in Irbid the first Directorate of Education in the first semester 2013/2014 and was distributed into four sections, which were selected purposefully two female sections and two male sections. Results: findings of the study indicated that there were statistically significant differences in the post- tests between the control and the experimental groups in favor of the experimental group which their parents were exposed to health education intervention about breakfast, and there was no statistically significant difference in the students' achievement due to gender or to the interaction between gender and group. Conclusion: breakfast has a positive effect on students’ academic performance. Keywords: Academic Achievement, Health Education Programs, School Children.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to detect the level of optimism and pessimism and its relation to the quality of life in patients with renal failure in the government and private hospitals in Irbid in light of the variables: gender, age, duration of disease and educational level of patients, the sample of the study consisted of (93) patients with kidney failure, who were randomly selected from the study population. The researchers used optimism and pessimism scale and the quality of life scales, their validity and reliability were verified. Results of the study showed that the means for optimism scale ranged between (3.602-3.075) with a medium degree, and the means for pessimism scale ranged between (4.086-3.118) with a high and medium degree, while the means for quality of life scale ranged between (4.054-2.957) with a high and medium degree. Results also showed the existence of a correlation between the level of optimism and the level of quality of life and this relationship is a moderate relationship, and a lack of correlation between level of optimism and level of pessimism and level of pessimism and quality of life. There are no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (0.05) in the patients' responses on the optimism, pessimism scales according to (gender, family income, medical insurance and origin).