4.1 Article

Evaluation of the Master's curriculum for elderly nursing: a qualitative study

期刊

CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS IN AGING
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 1333-1342

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S109004

关键词

Iran; geriatric nursing; content analysis; MS student

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Improving the quality of health care and rehabilitation for the elderly is one of the most important priorities of the health care system. Given the importance of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of any program after its implementation, this study was conducted to identify the advantages and weaknesses of a geriatric nursing program at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Methods: This was a qualitative study, and the study population comprised students, graduates, and professors of geriatric nursing at the Master of Science level. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and focus groups. Sixteen interviews were conducted. The interview guide was used as a research tool. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Three main themes including motivation to enter geriatric nursing, lack of employment groundwork, and lack of practical implementation of the curriculum were the main findings of the study. Conclusion: Efforts to restructure the administrative system and employment can deter geriatric nursing students from simply earning a degree and actually encourage them to learn the required content. Appraisal and improvement of education facilities for student recruitment can guarantee the practical implementation of the curriculum. Drafting policies to attract graduates in clinical environments, opening up employment opportunities, providing organizational positions for the recruitment of this group, as well as dedicating some wards for elderly special care and providing nursing care to elderly people only can increase students' motivation to learn and their hopes of good job prospects.

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

4.1
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