↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of the Master’s curriculum for elderly nursing: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of the Master’s curriculum for elderly nursing: a qualitative study
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s109004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fatemeh Ghaffari, Nahid Dehghan-Nayeri, Nasrin Navabi, Khatereh Seylani

Abstract

Improving the quality of health care and rehabilitation for the elderly is one of the most important priorities of the health care system. Given the importance of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of any program after its implementation, this study was conducted to identify the advantages and weaknesses of a geriatric nursing program at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. This was a qualitative study, and the study population comprised students, graduates, and professors of geriatric nursing at the Master of Science level. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and focus groups. Sixteen interviews were conducted. The interview guide was used as a research tool. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the data. Three main themes including "motivation to enter geriatric nursing", "lack of employment groundwork", and "lack of practical implementation of the curriculum" were the main findings of the study. Efforts to restructure the administrative system and employment can deter geriatric nursing students from simply earning a degree and actually encourage them to learn the required content. Appraisal and improvement of education facilities for student recruitment can guarantee the practical implementation of the curriculum. Drafting policies to attract graduates in clinical environments, opening up employment opportunities, providing organizational positions for the recruitment of this group, as well as dedicating some wards for elderly special care and providing nursing care to elderly people only can increase students' motivation to learn and their hopes of good job prospects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Librarian 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Psychology 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,779
of 348,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#36
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 348,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.