4.5 Article

The Global Nursing Faculty Shortage: Status and Solutions for Change

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 317-326

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12030

关键词

Global nursing faculty shortage; nursing faculty shortage; solutions to the nursing faculty shortage; systematic review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In addition to a global shortage of nurses, there is also a shortage of academically qualified faculty available to teach in schools of nursing. Methods: A systematic review examined proposed solutions to the global shortage of nursing faculty. Metasynthesis was used to compare and critically appraise strategies offered for solving or ameliorating the global nursing faculty shortage by premier nursing organizations. Findings: 181 recommendations in 62 publications were categorized into eight major themed solutions, including centralizing data management, international collaboration in nursing research, and increased funding for full-time faculty positions in nursing programs. Discussion: The nursing faculty shortage is due to a confluence of factors, including the global migration of nurses, a seeming persistent devaluation of faculty by academic programs, disincentives, and an overall reduction in fulltime equivalent faculty positions. Conclusions: Results point to a needed change in direction and approach to solving the nursing faculty shortage. By designing new education models that fit global healthcare needs and pooling teaching resources, designing and using the same databases across organizations to track and project faculty needs, and collaborating between schools and businesses to create mutually beneficial agreements for services, nursing faculty capacity can be enhanced, and nursing's capacity to meet global healthcare needs can be expanded. Clinical Relevance: The results of this systematic review can be used as a rubric for the design and development of strategies to end the nursing faculty shortage and expand global nursing capacity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据