ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2025
Nurses' and Midwives' Experiences of Clinical Supervision in Practice: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Professional Growth and Constraint Through Clinical Supervision: A Qualitative Study of Community Mental Health Nurse Specialists in South Korea.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Latent profiles of emotional intelligence and associated factors among clinical nurses: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Restorative reflective supervision: introducingJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2025Article
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 understand the extent and type of evidence that exists related to nurses' and midwives' experiences of participating in clinical supervision and ascertain how clinical supervision is defined in the literature.
designA scoping review of peer reviewed research. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier) and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles published between 2010 and 2024. REVIEW
methodsThe scoping review followed the JBI methodology. REPORTING
methodPRISMA-ScR.
resultsForty-three articles were included, qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies and three reviews were found describing nurses' and midwives' experiences of clinical supervision. The studies identified were carried out across 15 countries and reported on experiences of group clinical supervision, one to one clinical supervision or both, more recent studies included a focus on group clinical supervision. All definitions found are reported, and although these varied, there were frequently used terms common in many.
conclusionAlthough some evidence exists on how nurses and midwives experience clinical supervision gaps in evidence and detail of supervision practices remain. Inconsistencies of approach to this practice remain and specific detail relating to clinical supervision explored in existing research is frequently lacking. The lack of a universally accepted definition highlighted may influence inconsistences in clinical supervision, key terms identified in this review may assist in the development of a definition. Further research into this support is required to establish its value in practice. IMPACT: This scoping review progresses the ongoing debate that clinical supervision is a valuable support for nurses' and midwives' but the absence of evidence is an indication that clinical supervision is not fully understood nor is visible in practice. To this end, this review highlights that the lack of consensus on a clinical supervision definition causes ambiguity thus reducing the use of this support for nurses and midwives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no patient or public contribution to this paper as it is a review paper that seeks information on research available on a professional support. Protocol registration@ Open science Framework: identifier 10.17605/OSF.IO/QNKUR.
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.