| Title |
Master’s programs in advanced nursing practice: new strategies to enhance course design for subspecialty training in neonatology and pediatrics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s29270 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin Morgan, Catherine Barry, Katie Barnes |
| Abstract |
The advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) role first developed in the USA in the 1960s in primary care. Since then, it has evolved in many different countries and subspecialties, creating a variety of challenges for those designing and implementing master's programs for this valuable professional group. We focus on ANPs in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care setting to illustrate the complexity of issues faced by both faculty and students in such a program. We review the impact of limited resources, faculty recruitment/accreditation, and the relationship with the medical profession in establishing a curriculum. We explore the evidence for the importance of ANP role definition, supervision, and identity among other health professionals to secure a successful role transition. We describe how recent advances in technology can be used to innovate with new styles of teaching and learning to overcome some of the difficulties in running master's programs for small subspecialties. We illustrate, through our own experience, how a thorough assessment of the available literature can be used to innovate and develop strategies to create an individual MSc programs that are designed to meet the needs of highly specialized advanced neonatal and pediatric nursing practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 33% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 37% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,247,404
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,991
of 287,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them