Factors contributing to nursing leadership: A systematic review

Abstract

These findings suggest that leadership can be developed through specific educational activities, and by modelling and practising leadership competencies. However, the relatively weak study designs provide limited evidence for specific factors that could increase the effectiveness of current nursing leadership or guide the identification of future nurse leaders. Robust theory and research on interventions to develop and promote viable nursing leadership for the future are needed to achieve the goal of developing healthy work environments for health care providers and optimizing care for patients.

Evolution of a Community-Based Participatory Approach in a Rural and Remote Dementia Care Research Program

“…Over time, a process of mutual trust and respect has been building between our research team and our ever-widening community partners. With our relationship-focused leadership, 49 we have experienced few tensions and the time consumed has been enjoyable and worthwhile in terms of positive impact for the community we serve. Using the typology proposed by Arnstein, 50 our engagement with decision makers has evolved from "consultation" to "partnership"; factors such as researcher accountability to funding agencies and limitations of researcher expertise are challenges to reaching the level of "citizen control."…”

Health care provider social network analysis: A systematic review

“…For studies with quantitative designs, the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlation Studies was used (Cummings et al, 2008;Estabrooks et al, 2001;Estabrooks, Floyd, ScottFindlay, O'Leary, & Gushta, 2003). This instrument includes 12 items to evaluate the design, sample, measurement, and statistical analysis for quantitative observational studies, with a total of 12 possible points.…”

Leaders’ experiences and perceptions implementing activity-based funding and pay-for-performance hospital funding models: A systematic review

“…For purposes of categorization, reviewers completed the appraisal and, based on their collective responses to questions included in the tool, assigned manuscripts to categories of quality in the range of Low to High. The two mixed methods studies [60,61] were also appraised using an adapted version of Cummings et al's [62] tool (Supplementary data), designed to evaluate studies with exploratory, non-experimental, correlational or cross-sectional designs. Minor wording changes were made to the tool to address the focus of this review.…”