A systematic review of the psychiatric/mental health nursing research literature 1982–1992

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of quantitative psychiatric/mental health nursing research articles published in English between 1982 and 1992, worldwide. Criteria for selection of articles included nurse authorship or co-authorship, use of a quantitative design and pertinence to an aspect of the nursing process with psychiatric/mental health patients. One hundred and ninety-four articles met these criteria. The quality of each article was assessed by two nurse experts using Duffy's Research Appraisal Checklist (RAC). Forty-six point nine per cent of the articles were rated as superior, 50% as average and 3.1% as below average. Other findings identified journals that published research articles, countries in which research was completed, applicability of funding and qualifications of the authors. The major implications of this study are that nurses can be directed to superior articles; more publication of research by nurse authors is warranted, research is being completed with little financial support, highly rated research publications tend to get funding and editorial policies affect the quality of publication.

Peer‐reviewed publication output of psychiatric nurses in the Republic of Ireland

“…suggest that in recent time bibliometrics has become attractive to research funders and policymakers, as it promises some possible measurement of productivity. Bibliometric analysis has been used in other countries to quantify research and publication output in nursing, for example, Australia , America (Zauszniewski & Suresky 2003), Canada (Yonge et al 1997), Slovenia (Dornik et al 2005), Taiwan (Huang & Chuang 2006) and the UK . Common themes from these analyses were the rapid growth of nursing research and publications in comparison with other professional groups, the overrepresentation of research to do with professional issues as opposed to the care of patients, and concerns on methodology issues, such as sampling and rigour.…”

“…2002, Wilkes et al . 2002), America (Zauszniewski & Suresky 2003), Canada (Yonge et al . 1997), Slovenia (Dornik et al .…”

Non-direct patient care factors influencing nursing workload: a review of the literature

“…In the data evaluation stage of the integrative review, the Research Appraisal Checklist (RAC) (Duffy 1985) was used to assess the scientific quality of the included studies. The RAC-scale has been used in earlier publications (Brown 1990, Yonge et al 1997, Beeckman et al 2009) and contains 51 assessment criteria, ordered in 10 categories e.g. abstract, problem, data analysis and style.…”

The literature of occupational science: A systematic, quantitative examination of peer‐reviewed publications from 1996–2006

“…As a point of comparison, a brief review of nursing research studies revealed notation of obtained funding rates ranging from 37% (Yonge et al, 1997) to 48% (Molassiotis et al, 2006). While the funding rate for empirical articles within occupational science literature falls within this range, it is at the lower end.…”