ReviewSAGE open nursing
Redefining Strength: Challenging the Strong Black Woman Stereotype in Nursing Education and Leadership.
Review in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balancing Resilience and Vulnerability: An Integrative Review of the Strong Black Woman Schema in Nursing Education and Leadership.Nursing open · 2026Review
- From Resilience to Resistance: Rethinking Faculty Well-Being as a Moral and Political Problem in Nursing Education-Toward a Humane Ethics of Academic Care.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
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
Introduction: The Strong Black Woman (SBW) schema, deeply embedded in sociocultural and historical narratives, portrays Black women as inherently resilient, self-sacrificing, and emotionally restrained. While it can serve as a source of pride and survival, the schema often imposes psychological, emotional, and physical burdens-particularly in academic nursing, where systemic inequities intersect with racialized and gendered expectations. This paper examines how the SBW schema operates in nursing education and leadership and advocates for a redefinition of strength that embraces vulnerability, wellness, and collective care. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes research on the SBW schema with a focus on its historical origins, cultural significance, and psychological impacts. Peer-reviewed publications in English from 2000 to 2024 were identified through searches in CINAHL, PubMed, ERIC, EBSCO, and Google Scholar using terms related to the SBW schema and nursing contexts. Although few nursing-specific studies exist, key articles by Jefferies, and Parks and Hayman informed the discussion. Additional insights were drawn from psychology, sociology, public health, and Black feminist theory to contextualize its implications for nursing education and leadership. Results: The schema contributes to emotional suppression, delayed help-seeking, and heightened risk of burnout. In predominantly white institutions, Black women in nursing experience amplified pressures to overperform, serve as cultural representatives, and navigate professional isolation. These expectations are reinforced by intergenerational and media-driven narratives. While the schema can foster pride and perseverance, its glorification masks its long-term mental health consequences. Emerging literature calls for a paradigm shift that integrates emotional authenticity and systemic support into nursing leadership and education. Conclusion: Redefining strength in nursing requires dismantling individualistic ideals of resilience and affirming vulnerability as a culturally grounded act of care and resistance. Structural change must include equity-focused policies, antiracist leadership development, and emotionally safe environments that validate the full humanity of Black women in academic nursing.
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.