IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i9-10p1793-1802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The challenge of the biosciences in nurse education: A literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Kari Toverud Jensen
  • Unni Knutstad
  • Tonks N. Fawcett

Abstract

Aims and objectives To review relevant literature that addresses the challenges of the biosciences in nurse education. More precisely, the review aims to explore the literature, concerning students’ learning, learning contexts and methodological issues and identify any significant gaps. Background Knowledge of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry is essential for the understanding of human beings and for full appreciation of the concepts of illness and disease. The current status would seem to be that the required competencies within bioscience subjects are difficult to acquire and students have high rates of failure. Design Integrative review. Methods The research was performed on CINAHL, ERIC, Medline and British Nursing Index databases in a period from 2013–2017. Descriptive analytical methods were used for the initial research trawl. Findings The search strategy resulted in 23 papers. The results of this review shed light on certain deficiencies in the research field looking at the biosciences in nurse education. There is a distinct lack of intervention studies and, thereby, knowledge of how best to support students’ learning in effective ways. Of note is that there are no field study approaches identified in the review sample. Conclusion Many of the papers are single studies and course evaluations which may be seen as too narrow and inadequate as perspective. Students appear satisfied with the courses in the biosciences, but there seems to be no correlation between satisfaction and achievement. Relevance to clinical practice Understanding and being able to give coherent rationales for the bioscience content in the nursing curricula are crucial and must be established in relation to its relevance to the dynamic nature of patient care, technological advances and demographic realities. Only on that basis can the primacy of this content be seen as relevant to the aspiring student nurse.

Suggested Citation

  • Kari Toverud Jensen & Unni Knutstad & Tonks N. Fawcett, 2018. "The challenge of the biosciences in nurse education: A literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 1793-1802, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1793-1802
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14358
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14358?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Virpi Sulosaari & Riitta Suhonen & Helena Leino‐Kilpi, 2011. "An integrative review of the literature on registered nurses’ medication competence," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3‐4), pages 464-478, February.
    2. Vanessa Taylor & Sarah Ashelford & Patricia Fell & Penelope J Goacher, 2015. "Biosciences in nurse education: is the curriculum fit for practice? Lecturers' views and recommendations from across the UK," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2797-2806, October.
    3. Amelia Swift & Nikolaos Efstathiou & Paula Lameu, 2016. "Is LabTutor a helpful component of the blended learning approach to biosciences?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2683-2693, September.
    4. Mark Molesworth & Moira Lewitt, 2016. "Preregistration nursing students’ perspectives on the learning, teaching and application of bioscience knowledge within practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5-6), pages 725-732, March.
    5. Tonks N. Fawcett & Anne Waugh & Graeme D. Smith, 2016. "Editorial: The primacy of the biosciences: a forgotten priority in nurse education?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2680-2682, September.
    6. Sharon Andrew & Andrew McVicar & Mandana Zanganeh & Nigel Henderson, 2015. "Self‐efficacy and relevance of bioscience for nursing, midwifery and healthcare students," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(19-20), pages 2965-2972, October.
    7. Christopher J. Gordon & Peter B. Hudson & Mark B. Plenderleith & Murray Fisher & Judy A. Craft, 2017. "Final year Australian nursing students’ experiences with bioscience: A cross‐sectional survey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 22-28, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hanne Maria Bingen & Simen A. Steindal & Rune Johan Krumsvik & Bodil Tveit, 2020. "Studying physiology within a flipped classroom: The importance of on‐campus activities for nursing students’ experiences of mastery," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(15-16), pages 2907-2917, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jane Koch & Lucie M. Ramjan & Bronwyn Everett & Anna Maceri & Kate Bell & Yenna Salamonson, 2020. "“Sage on the stage or guide on the side”—Undergraduate nursing students’ experiences and expectations of bioscience tutors in a blended learning curriculum: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 863-871, March.
    2. Christopher J. Gordon & Peter B. Hudson & Mark B. Plenderleith & Murray Fisher & Judy A. Craft, 2017. "Final year Australian nursing students’ experiences with bioscience: A cross‐sectional survey," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 22-28, March.
    3. Tonks N. Fawcett & Anne Waugh & Graeme D. Smith, 2016. "Editorial: The primacy of the biosciences: a forgotten priority in nurse education?," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2680-2682, September.
    4. Patricia Lynne Fell & Kerry Dobbins & Philip Dee, 2016. "Bioscience learning in clinical placement: the experiences of pre‐registration nursing students," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2694-2705, September.
    5. Hanne Maria Bingen & Simen A. Steindal & Rune Johan Krumsvik & Bodil Tveit, 2020. "Studying physiology within a flipped classroom: The importance of on‐campus activities for nursing students’ experiences of mastery," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(15-16), pages 2907-2917, August.
    6. Federica Dellafiore & Cristina Arrigoni & Greta Ghizzardi & Irene Baroni & Gianluca Conte & Francesca Turrini & Gianluca Castiello & Arianna Magon & Francesco Pittella & Rosario Caruso, 2019. "Development and validation of the pressure ulcer management self‐efficacy scale for nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3177-3188, September.
    7. Emily Rohde & Elizabeth Domm, 2018. "Nurses’ clinical reasoning practices that support safe medication administration: An integrative review of the literature," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 402-411, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:9-10:p:1793-1802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.