Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38946119›Full record

SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2025

Current nursing and midwifery contribution to leading digital health policy and practice: An integrative review.

Gillian Janes, Lorna Chesterton, Vanessa Heaslip, Joanne Reid, Bente Lüdemann, João Gentil, Rolf-André Oxholm, Clayton Hamilton, Natasha Phillips, Michael Shannon

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

10 authors.

Gillian JanesSchool of Nursing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1609-5898
Lorna ChestertonFaculty of Health and Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Vanessa HeaslipSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, UK.
Joanne ReidSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5820-862X
Bente LüdemannNorwegian Nurses Organisation, Oslo, Norway.
João GentilPublic Health Unit, Baixo Mondego, Portugal.
Rolf-André OxholmNorwegian Nurses Organisation, Oslo, Norway.
Clayton HamiltonRegional Office for Europe, World Health Organization, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Natasha PhillipsChief Nurse's Office, NHS England, London, UK.
Michael ShannonFaculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

Global Nursing Leadership Institute/International Council of Nurses 06/2023Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland 01/2023World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo review the current nursing and midwifery contribution to leading digital health (DH) policy and practice and what facilitates and/or challenges this.

designIntegrative literature review.

methodsPre-defined inclusion criteria were used. Study selection and quality assessment using the appropriate critical appraisal tools were undertaken by two authors, followed by narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Six databases and hand searching for papers published from 2012 to February 2024.

findingsFour themes were identified from 24 included papers. These are discussed according to the World Health Organization's Global Strategic Directions for Nursing and Midwifery and indicate nurses/midwives are leading DH policy and practice, but this is not widespread or systematically enabled.

conclusionNurses and midwives are ideally placed to help improve health outcomes through digital healthcare transformation, but their policy leadership potential is underused. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses/midwives' DH leadership must be optimized to realize maximum benefit from digital transformation. A robust infrastructure enabling nursing/midwifery DH policy leadership is urgently needed. IMPACT: This study addresses the lack of nursing/midwifery voice in international DH policy leadership. It offers nurses/midwives and health policymakers internationally opportunity to: drive better understanding of nursing/midwifery leadership in a DH policy context; enhance population outcomes by optimizing their contribution; Develop a robust infrastructure to enable this. REPORTING

methodReporting adheres to the EQUATOR network, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Indexed as

Health PolicyMidwiferyAdultDigital HealthFemaleHumansLeadershipNurse's RolePregnancydigital healthhealth policyhealth workforceintegrative reviewleadershipmidwivesnurses

Identifiers

PMID38946119
PMCPMC11638528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.