Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38531589›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Impact of clinical supervision on the mental health nursing workforce: a scoping review protocol.

Joshua Henry McDonough, Kate Rhodes, Nicholas Procter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joshua Henry McDonoughClinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3253-1976
Kate RhodesClinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1194-2787
Nicholas ProcterClinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia nicholas.procter@unisa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7289-3165
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMental health nurses work in potentially unpredictable, stressful and complex environments that can lead to burn-out and high staff turnover. Clinical supervision is a formal and professional agreement between two or more people that aims to strengthen individuals' competencies and organisational strengths. Effective clinical supervision has been noted as a method of reducing workplace issues within mental health nursing, but there is not currently a synthesis of evidence in this area. The key objective of this scoping review is to identify, map and analyse the available evidence reporting on the impact of clinical supervision on workforce outcomes for mental health nurses.

methodsA scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Scoping Review Extension method will be conducted exploring clinical supervision for mental health nurses. A search for academic literature from Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO will be combined with grey literature sourced through Google to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies identified by the search strategy will be managed using Covidence, and two authors will screen all identified articles. Reference lists of included studies will be handsearched to identify any potentially relevant studies missed by the search strategy. ANALYSIS: A summary tool including predefined categories (such as author, date published, workforce outcome measured) will be used to summarise the included studies in this scoping review. Additionally, a narrative synthesis approach will be used to report the outcomes of included studies and provide further analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review protocol described research that will use secondary analysis of publicly available information, and therefore, does not require ethics approval. The findings of this research will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal and relevant conference presentations.

Indexed as

Psychiatric NursingHumansPreceptorshipResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicWorkforceWorkplaceEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)Health WorkforceMENTAL HEALTHNurses

Identifiers

PMID38531589
PMCPMC10966816
OpenAlexW4393203261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.