Objective: Evaluation of a nursing faculty mentorship program available to every faculty member regardless of seniority.Methods: Design: The faculty mentorship program was developed and implemented in a university-affiliated nursing department in Montreal in 2018. Mentors and mentees evaluated the program using self-reported surveys one-year post-implementation. The surveys addressed three main themes: (a) determining goals of the mentoring partnership; (b) overall level of satisfaction with the program; and (c) characteristics of each dyad’s mentoring agreement (strategies used to communicate, where the dyads met, etc.). Method: Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted.Results: A total of 19 mentees and 15 mentors completed the survey. The program was judged to be a worthwhile use of time by 89% of mentees and 93% of mentors. Even though specific mentoring needs differed according to seniority level, the program was shown to be beneficial to both less-experienced and more-experienced faculty. The main barriers to mentorship that were identified were related to timing, scheduling and time commitment issues. Clinical relevance: A successful mentorship program aimed at fostering relationships between nursing faculty members, regardless of seniority, has the potential to improve the productivity of a healthy workplace including the quality of both teaching and research.Conclusions: The mentorship program proposed herein was found to be useful and effective, as well as being beneficial as much for younger as for more experienced faculty members.
Background: Identifying literature for a systematic review requires searching a variety of sources. The main sources are typically bibliographic databases. Web searching using search engines and websites may be used to identify grey literature. Searches should be reported in order to ensure transparency and reproducibility. This study assesses the reporting of web searching for systematic reviews carried out by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (UK). The study also makes recommendations about reporting web searching for systematic reviews in order to achieve a reasonable level of transparency and reproducibility. Methods: Systematic reviews were identified by searching the HTA database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) website. Systematic reviews were included in the study if they made reference to searching the web using either search engines or websites. A data-extraction checklist was designed to record how web searching was reported. The checklist recorded whether a systematic review reported: the names of search engines or websites; the dates they were searched; the search terms; the results of the searches; and, in the case of websites, whether a URL was reported. Results: 554 HTA reports published between January 2004 and December 2013 were identified. 300 of these reports are systematic reviews, of which 108 report web searching using either a search engine or a website. Overall, the systematic reviews assessed in the study exhibit a low standard of web search reporting. In the majority of cases, the only details reported are the names of websites (n = 54) or search engines (n = 33). A small minority (n = 6) exhibit the highest standard of web search reporting. Conclusions: Most web search reporting in systematic reviews carried out on the UK HTA programme is not detailed enough to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Transparency of reporting could be improved by adhering to a reporting standard such as the standard detailed in the CRD systematic reviews methods guidance. Reproducibility is harder to achieve due to the frequency of changes to websites and search engines.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.