IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i21-22p4090-4103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A 10‐year evaluation of projects in a doctor of nursing practice programme

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth‐Alma N. Turkson‐Ocran
  • Erin M. Spaulding
  • Susan Renda
  • Vinciya Pandian
  • Hannah Rittler
  • Patricia M. Davidson
  • Marie T. Nolan
  • Rita D’Aoust

Abstract

Aims and objectives The role of professional doctorates is receiving increased attention internationally. As part of building the rigour and scholarship of these programmes, we assessed projects undertaken as part of a doctor of nursing practice (DNP) programme at Johns Hopkins University. Recommendations for programme development in professional doctorates are provided. Background Past research has described the methodologic limitations and dissemination of DNP projects. However, few studies have provided recommendations for strengthening these projects and alternative strategies for achieving scale in larger student cohorts. Design A descriptive study reported in accordance with STROBE guidelines. Methods From 2009–2018, 191 final DNP project reports were obtained from the DNP programme administrator. Essential project characteristics from the papers were extracted, including use of theoretical framework, design, setting, sample and dissemination through publication. To determine whether the results of the projects had been published, the title and student’s name were searched in Google Scholar and Google. Results Of the 191 projects, 83% focused on adults and 61% were conducted in the hospital setting. Sample sizes ranged from 7 to 24,702. Eighty per cent of the projects employed a pretest/post‐test design, including both single and independent groups. The projects spanned six overarching themes, including process improvement, clinician development, patient safety, patient outcome improvement, access to care and workplace environment. Twenty‐one per cent of the project findings were published in scholarly journals. Conclusions Conducting a critical review of DNP projects has been useful in refining a strategy shifting from incremental to transformative changes in advanced practice. Relevance to clinical practice Programme evaluation is critical in order to sufficiently prepare nurses in advanced nursing practice to influence healthcare outcomes at the individual or population level.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth‐Alma N. Turkson‐Ocran & Erin M. Spaulding & Susan Renda & Vinciya Pandian & Hannah Rittler & Patricia M. Davidson & Marie T. Nolan & Rita D’Aoust, 2020. "A 10‐year evaluation of projects in a doctor of nursing practice programme," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(21-22), pages 4090-4103, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4090-4103
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15435
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15435?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. Kathleen D. Becker & Shania Johnson & Denise Rucker & Deborah S. Finnell, 2018. "Dissemination of scholarship across eight cohorts of doctor of nursing practice graduates," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1395-1401, April.
    2. Andrew Pettigrew & Richard Whipp, 1992. "Managing Change and Corporate Performance," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Karel Cool & Damien J. Neven & Ingo Walter (ed.), European Industrial Restructuring in the 1990s, chapter 9, pages 227-265, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Karel Cool & Damien J. Neven & Ingo Walter (ed.), 1992. "European Industrial Restructuring in the 1990s," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-12582-1, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Prabath Chaminda Abeysiriwardana & Udith K. Jayasinghe-Mudalige, 2021. "Role of Peripheral Analysis Methods in Adoption of Successful KPIs for a Research Institute Working Towards Commercial Agriculture," International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 61-71, June.
    2. Michael Peneder, 2003. "Industry Classifications: Aim, Scope and Techniques," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 109-129, March.
    3. Neven, D. & Siotis, G., 1996. "Technology sourcing and FDI in the EC: An empirical evaluation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 543-560, July.
    4. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    5. Nagesh Kumar, 2007. "Investment Provisions in Regional Trading Arrangements in Asia: Relevance, Emerging Trends, and Policy Implications," Working Papers 4607, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade (ARTNeT), an initiative of UNESCAP and IDRC, Canada..
    6. de Haan, Maarten & van Eijk-Hustings, Yvonne & Bessems-Beks, Monique & Dirksen, Carmen & Vrijhoef, Hubertus J.M., 2019. "Facilitators and barriers to implementing task shifting: Expanding the scope of practice of clinical technologists in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(11), pages 1076-1082.
    7. Michael Böheim & Michael Pfaffermayr & Klaus Gugler, 2000. "Do Growth Rates Differ in European Manufacturing Industries?," Austrian Economic Quarterly, WIFO, vol. 5(2), pages 93-104, May.
    8. Vonortas, Nicholas S. & Safioleas, Stratos P., 1997. "Strategic alliances in information technology and developing country firms: Recent evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 657-680, May.

    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:29:y:2020:i:21-22:p:4090-4103. 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.