Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35395106›Full record

ReviewPublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)2022

A Sisyphean task: Developing and revising public health nursing competencies.

Mary K Canales, Denise J Drevdahl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mary K CanalesUniversity of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-2725
Denise J DrevdahlUniversity of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompetencies are intended to enhance the public health workforce's skills. Competencies used to evaluate public health nursing (PHN) practice and education have been promoted by several nursing organizations. Having multiple sets of competencies raises questions about redundancies and their usefulness in evaluating PHN, as well as the central question about the value of the competencies themselves.

methodsA literature review of psychometric evaluation research of the competencies was performed. Qualitative content analyses were conducted of seven documents: Association of Community Health Nursing Educators', 2000 and 2010 essentials; Quad Council Coalition's 2004, 2011, and 2018 competencies; and the American Nurses Association's, 2013 and the 2021 draft of PHN scope and standards of practice with respect to competency definition, conceptual basis, and use of an established taxonomy.

resultsNo psychometric evaluations of the competency sets were found. Textual content analysis revealed inconsistent and or missing competency definitions and theoretical frameworks with competencies proliferating over time. Taxonomy analysis identified minimal competencies at higher complexity levels according to Bloom's revised taxonomy.

conclusionsAnalyzed competencies lack reliability and validity testing, making assessment difficult for PHN educators and practitioners. Multiple and competing competencies further erode PHN's visibility, even among public health nurses. With unending revisions of PHN competencies and lack of supporting evidence regarding their effect and their integration into education or practice, recommendations for future efforts are offered.

Indexed as

Community Health NursingNurses, Public HealthClinical CompetenceHumansPublic Health NursingReproducibility of ResultsBloom's revised taxonomycompetencycontent analysispublic health nursing

Identifiers

PMID35395106
PMCPMC9543881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.