ArticleNursing open2024
Assessing the success of a research leadership programme for senior nurses and midwives: A mixed methods programme evaluation.
Article in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsIn 2018 the National Institute of Health and Care Research, United Kingdom, launched a 3-year Senior Nurse and Midwife Research Leader Programme to support nurse and midwifery research leaders to develop research capacity and capability within NHS organisations. We report the results of a service evaluation of the programme strengths, areas for improvement and achievement of programme aims.
designPartially mixed, concurrent mixed methods programme evaluation, including: (a) meeting evaluation (survey), (b) annual evaluation (survey) and (c) qualitative stakeholder interviews.
methodsSurvey results were quantitatively analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, deductively coded using elements within the logic model and analysed using the seven-stage framework analysis method.
resultsSatisfaction with the programme was high (75%). The main perceived benefit of the programme was being part of a network. Challenges included accessing learning resources, lack of opportunity to network and lack of clarity about the programme aims. Meetings were evaluated as relevant and helpful (mean 93%), thought-provoking (92%), inspiring (91%), at the appropriate level (91%) and aligned with the programme aims (90%). All meetings were ranked as highly beneficial by attendees (92%). Stakeholder feedback on the programme success reflected the importance of leadership, the programme design and content, 'connection and community' and communication with and about the cohort. Overall, the anticipated programme aims were met, evaluating well from both the perspective of those on the programme and the wider stakeholder group. There has been a lack of investment in schemes to support research leadership development for nurses/midwives. A novel programme to support nursing/midwifery research leadership was positively evaluated. The programme is a useful model to support future capacity and capability building for nurses/midwives. The work is reported with reference to the SQUIRE 2 and SRQR checklists. No patient or public contribution.
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.