ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2021
Development of nurse practitioner metaspecialty clinical practice standards: A national sequential mixed methods study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- To explore the application value of nursing staff involved multidisciplinary continuous nursing in stroke patients with limb dysfunction.BMC health services research · 2024Trial
- Requesting Diagnostic Imaging in Nurse Practitioner Practice: Results of a National Survey.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- Practice pathways, education, and regulation influencing nurse practitioners' decision to provide primary care: a rapid scoping review.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Development of nurse practitioner metaspecialty clinical practice standards: A national sequential mixed methods study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo achieve profession-wide consensus on clinical practice standards for six broad Australian nurse practitioner specialty areas (termed metaspecialties).
designSequential mixed methods with initial interpretive study (Interpretive Phase) followed by modified three-round Delphi study (Survey Phase).
methodsParticipants from all Australian jurisdictions were recruited. Main eligibility criterion was current endorsement as a nurse practitioner for 12 or more months. Interpretive Phase comprised in-depth interviews of purposeful sample of nurse practitioners to identify clinical care activities and practice processes. Six sets of draft clinical practice standards relevant to six previously identified metaspecialties were developed. Outcome informed Round 1 of Survey Phase (six nested web-based Delphi surveys), with draft standards reviewed profession-wide. Responses comprised scoring using Likert scales to calculate content validity indexes for individual standards with qualitative responses supporting decision-making. For Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated relevancy of original or revised standards after consideration of individual and group feedback. The study was conducted 2014-2017.
resultsInterpretive Phase: Analysis of interview data with 16 nurse practitioners provided 75 draft standards. Survey Phase: 221 nurse practitioners completed Round 1 (20% of then eligible Australian nurse practitioners). Weighted respondent retention was 92%. Seventy-three standards were validated, with final content validity indices of 92-100%. Scale-level indices were 98%, strongly validating metaspecialty taxonomy.
conclusionA research-derived, professionally endorsed suite of nurse practitioner clinical practice standards was developed. This provides a broad clinical learning structure with metaspecialties guiding nurse practitioner student clinical education. IMPACT: The clinical practice standards and metaspecialty taxonomy strengthen nurse practitioner clinical education and professional development nationally and internationally. These novel study methods and findings are applicable to advanced specialty roles in other health professions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.