Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Including systematic reviews in PhD programmes and candidatures in nursing: ‘Hobson's choice’?
Karlstads Universitet.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nursing.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8801-5423
Blekinge tekniska högskola, Malmö högskola.
2014 (English)In: Nurse Education in Practice, ISSN 1471-5953, E-ISSN 1873-5223, Vol. 14, no 2, 102-105 p.Article in journal, Letter (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Nowadays, gathering and synthesising evidence, i.e. conducting systematic reviews, is considered an important part of any health service research endeavour. Reviewing the literature, however suggest that it is not yet common that PhD students/doctoral candidates publish systematic reviews or even include a high quality review of the literature as a part of their PhD programme or candidature. Implying that systematic reviewing skills might not be acquired by going through an education on a postgraduate level. Additionally, scholars debating systematic reviews ‘to be or not to be’ as a part of research training seem to be sparse, especially within the field of nursing. In this issue for debate, we would like to propose that the absence of systematic reviews' in this context might severely hamper the ‘up and coming’ researchers as well as the research conducted. We envisage that this lack can have a negative impact on international nursing practice, and therefore propose that systematic reviews should be considered, whenever appropriate, as a mandatory part of any PhD programme or candidature. We believe that abilities in systematic reviewing will be a sought after research skills in the near future. Including systematic reviews would promote i) refined, well-grounded adequate research questions, ii) PhDs with broad and elevated methodological skills, iii) an increased level of evidence based nursing praxis. However, to make this a reality, supervisors, PhD students, and candidates would need to understand the value of this kind of research activity. Finally, lobbying University faculty boards and grant providers that are not inclined to view literature reviews as ‘proper’ research or as an important part of health service research, needs to be put on the agenda.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2014. Vol. 14, no 2, 102-105 p.
Keyword [en]
Meta-analysis, Meta-synthesis, Mixed studies reviews, Nursing, PhD theses, Systematic reviews
National Category
Research subject
Caring Sciences
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-86734DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2014.01.005PubMedID: 24480093OAI: diva2:703312
Available from: 2014-03-06 Created: 2014-03-06 Last updated: 2014-06-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ringnér, Anders
By organisation
Department of Nursing
In the same journal
Nurse Education in Practice

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 61 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link