European neonatal intensive care nursing research priorities: an e-Delphi study

Wielenga, Joke M.; Tume, Lyvonne N.; Latour, Jos M.; Hoogen, Agnes van den

doi:10.1136/archdischild-2014-306858

Cited by 47 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Delphi methodology has been used extensively in similar studies worldwide, and is particularly appropriate when the goal is to achieve a level of agreement on a given issue among study participants (Brenner et al 2014;Schoenly 2015;Scott et al 2016;Wielenga et al 2015). Delphi studies vary in terms of the sample size and type of participants, with similar studies reporting sample sizes of 18-741 participants, including staff nurses, academics and nurse clinicians (Butler et al 2009;Schoenly 2015;Sun et al 2015;Wielenga et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of issues that were identified as high priorities internationally were considered of moderate importance in this study, for example the mental health of the child and family, pain assessment and management, end-of-life care for children and the scope of nursing roles in paediatrics (including advanced paediatric practitioners; Brenner et al 2014;Ramelet & Gill 2012;Wielenga et al 2015). In addition, health promotion and disease prevention did not emerge as priorities in this study, although they were previously identified by the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners in the United States and are key development areas given the emphasis on self-management of chronic care.…”

Section: Paediatric Nursingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research priorities for specialized nursing practice in the United Arab Emirates

Al‐Yateem

Al-Tamimi

Brenner

et al. 2017

International Nursing Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The findings provide guidance on key areas for nurses to focus research contributions to enhance evidence-based care and strengthen health systems. The identified priorities may also guide researchers in academic institutions to conduct research informed by current, clinically relevant issues. The findings may help inform funders and policymakers to support allocation of funding to research that has potential to contribute to enhancing nursing care in specialist areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Paediatric Nursingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research priorities for specialized nursing practice in the United Arab Emirates

Al‐Yateem

Al-Tamimi

Brenner

et al. 2017

International Nursing Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the nursing research of the classification systems NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) in neonates, the Delphi technique was utilized by Boledovičová et al (In Bužgová, Sikorová, 2008). Similarly, Wielenga et al (2015) A factor influencing the validation studies is the selection of the evaluator and the evaluation tool. It is evident from the studies analyzed in this scoping overview that their authors most often used a questionnaire to evaluate the defining characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation studies of nursing diagnoses in neonatology

Rabasová¹

2016

Cent Eur J Nurs Midw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The objective of the review was the analysis of Czech and foreign literature sources and professional periodicals to obtain a relevant comprehensive overview of validation studies of nursing diagnoses in neonatology. Design: Review. Methods: The selection criterion was studies concerning the validation of nursing diagnoses in neonatology. To obtain data from relevant sources, the licensed professional databases EBSCO, Web of Science and Scopus were utilized. The search criteria were: date of publication -unlimited; academic periodicals -full text; peer-reviewed periodicals; search language -English, Czech and Slovak. Results: A total of 788 studies were found. Only 5 studies were eligible for content analysis, dealing specifically with validation of nursing diagnoses in neonatology. The analysis of the retrieved studies suggests that authors are most often concerned with identifying the defining characteristics of nursing diagnoses applicable to both the mother (parents) and the newborn. The diagnoses were validated in the domains Role Relationship; Coping/Stress tolerance; Activity/Rest, and Elimination and Exchange. Diagnoses represented were from the field of dysfunctional physical needs as well as the field of psychosocial and spiritual needs. The diagnoses were as follows: Parental role conflict (00064); Impaired parenting (00056); Grieving (00136); Ineffective breathing pattern (00032); Impaired gas exchange (00030); and Impaired spontaneous ventilation (00033). Conclusion: Validation studies enable effective planning of interventions with measurable results and support clinical nursing practice.

show abstract

“…19 Only three of the 58 included qualitative studies asked participants specifically about priorities. [51][52][53] These focused on neonatal nurses' priorities in terms of training and providing care. The remaining studies asked participants more generally about their neonatal care experiences, and textual data suggested important outcome domains.…”

Section: Dataset Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Brunton

Webbe

Oliver

et al. 2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trials evaluating the same interventions rarely measure or report identical outcomes. This limits the possibility of aggregating effect sizes across studies to generate high‐quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. To address this problem, core outcome sets (COS) establish agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all future trials. When developing COS, potential outcome domains are identified by systematically reviewing the outcomes of trials, and increasingly, through primary qualitative research exploring the experiences of key stakeholders, with relevant outcome domains subsequently determined through transdisciplinary consensus development. However, the primary qualitative component can be time consuming with unclear impact. We aimed to examine the potential added value of a qualitative systematic review alongside a quantitative systematic review of trial outcomes to inform COS development in neonatal care using case analysis methods. We compared the methods and findings of a scoping review of neonatal trial outcomes and a scoping review of qualitative research on parents', patients', and professional caregivers' perspectives of neonatal care. Together, these identified a wider range and greater depth of health and social outcome domains, some unique to each review, which were incorporated into the subsequent Delphi process and informed the final set of core outcome domains. Qualitative scoping reviews of participant perspectives research, used in conjunction with quantitative scoping reviews of trials, could identify more outcome domains for consideration and could provide greater depth of understanding to inform stakeholder group discussion in COS development. This is an innovation in the application of research synthesis methods.

show abstract

European neonatal intensive care nursing research priorities: an e-Delphi study

Cited by 47 publications

References 27 publications

Research priorities for specialized nursing practice in the United Arab Emirates

Research priorities for specialized nursing practice in the United Arab Emirates

Validation studies of nursing diagnoses in neonatology

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About