3.8 Review

Nurse educators' experiences with student incivility: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

Publisher

KOREA HEALTH PERSONNEL LICENSING EXAMINATION INST
DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.23

Keywords

Education; Incivility; Qualitative research; Students; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study aimed to synthesize the best available qualitative research evidence on experiences of nurse educators with student incivility in undergraduate nursing classrooms. Methods: A meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence using thematic synthesis was conducted. A systematic search was performed of 12 databases for relevant literature with a publication date limit of March 31, 2019. Two reviewers independently conducted critical quality appraisals using the checklist for qualitative research developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: Eleven studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected in the review. From pooled study findings 26 descriptive themes were generated and categorized into the following 5 analytical themes: (i) contributing factors to student incivility, (ii) management of student incivility, (iii) impact: professional and personal damage, (iv) impact: professional growth, (v) initiative for the future. Conclusions: Many nurse educators became confident in their role accountability as both an educator and a gatekeeper and experienced professional growth. However, others experienced damage to personal and professional life and became demotivated for teaching. Nurse educators recommended strategies for preventing or better managing student incivility: institutional efforts of a university, unified approaches for student incivility within a nursing program, a faculty-to-faculty network for mentoring, and a better teaching and learning strategies of an individual educator. These strategies would help all nurse educators experience professional growth by successfully preventing and managing student incivility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available