SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Mentors' Experiences of Nursing Students' Peer Learning in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mentors' Experiences of Nursing Students' Peer Learning in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo synthesise the best available evidence on mentors' experiences in mentoring nursing students during peer learning clinical practice.
designA systematic review of qualitative studies.
methodsQualitative or mixed-methods (with a qualitative component) studies that met the inclusion criteria based on the phenomenon of interest were included. The selected studies were critically appraised using the standardised JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Findings from qualitative research were extracted and synthesised by using the JBI meta-aggregation approach. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted in September 2024 across six databases: Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, ProQuest (Education collection) and MEDIC.
resultsA total of 542 studies were screened, and 17 met the inclusion criteria. Three synthesised findings were identified: (1) Importance of pedagogical support for peer learning, (2) Mentors' support needs for mentoring in a peer learning model and (3) Characteristics of a favourable peer learning environment in clinical practice.
conclusionMentors perceive peer learning as beneficial for nursing students' learning. The transition from the traditional mentoring model to the peer learning model requires distinct pedagogical approaches and competences from mentors, which can be enhanced by strengthening mentors' peer-learning competence. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: It is essential to support mentors' competence in mentoring through peer learning by providing mentoring education. Learning models based on collaborative learning are beneficial for improving performance in clinical placements because they enable more nursing students to learn simultaneously in clinical practice. IMPACT: This systematic review provides synthesised evidence of mentors' experiences in mentoring nursing students during peer learning in clinical practice. Mentors' role is to provide pedagogical support for nursing students in clinical practice conducted with peer learning. Before implementing peer learning in clinical practice, it is essential to consider the conditions for peer learning across various clinical settings and to provide support for mentors as they mentor nursing students through peer learning. These findings can support healthcare administrators, educators, mentoring education providers and mentors of peer learning in clinical practice. REPORTING
methodThis review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered in The Open Science Framework (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/5F9HP.
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.