Interventions to enhance the research productivity of academic staff in higher education schools of nursing: A systematic review.

AIM: Synthesize and present peer-reviewed evidence of interventions that enhance the research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing in Higher Education Institutions. BACKGROUND: Pressures on academics in Schools of Nursing worldwide to increase or maintain high research productivity persist and numerous Higher Education Institutions across the world have developed interventions to increase productivity. Given evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a withdrawal from research, understanding which interventions best support and improve research productivity is urgent. Increasing research capacity is crucial but only one element in increasing productivity. No recent attempt has been made to synthesise the knowledge gained from these more wide-ranging initiatives. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, searching four academic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO) from 1/01/2010-20/04/2022. All primary research studies of relevant interventions were included if they described the intervention, reported its outcomes and were published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. RESULTS: 1637 studies were assessed against eligibility criteria, resulting in 20 included studies. No studies were excluded based on quality. Data pertaining to understandings of 'research productivity', barriers to research productivity, interventions and outcomes of interventions were extracted. The most often used measures were the frequency or staff-output ratio of funding, publications and presentations, while the less commonly used were the number of conference abstracts submitted/accepted and awards. Subjective measures were less commonly used. Barriers to research productivity fell into three broad categories: resource constraints, lack of priority for research and barriers related to the attitudes, knowledge and skills of School of Nursing academics. Interventions covered nine broad areas. Half of the interventions were multi-stranded, including a wide range of components to increase research productivity while the other half comprised one component only, such as writing groups and mentoring. All interventions had a positive impact on research productivity, however, heterogeneity in the measurement of impact, the duration of interventions, sources of comparative data and research design made comparison of interventions challenging. CONCLUSIONS: The review identified a need for future research to explore the barriers among under-represented groups of academics in Schools of Nursing across a broader geographical area; and what works for various sub-groups of academics. It also identified a need for a valid, standardised tool to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase research productivity of academics in Schools of Nursing.

Co-design and delivery of a relational learning programme for nursing students and young people with severe and complex learning disabilities.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) staff in the UK are required to undergo training about learning disabilities at the appropriate level for their role. However, this requirement does not apply to nurses in training and student nurses report fear and anxiety about caring for people with intellectual learning disabilities (ILDs). Young people with intellectual disabilities report feeling scared of nurses and parents feel staff do not listen to them or involve them in care. OBJECTIVES: (i) For a university and special school for young people with server and complex ILDs to work in partnership to co-design a programme for nursing students, young people, their teachers, and parents. (ii) To deliver the programme online as part of the university's existing nursing courses. DESIGN: The partnership between the university and the special school focused on co-design of an interactive programme, parent involvement, safeguarding, and the design of accessible learning resources to support young people with severe and complex ILDs' engagement. The programme was informed by relational inquiry, service user and transformative pedagogies, and parents and teacher's knowledge and views about the young people. Delivery of the programme was designed to fit into existing nursing courses and enable students on placement and young people at home or in hospital to participate. A rights-based ethnographic evaluation was designed to support participant feedback and programme development. SETTING: The Heritage2Health Virtual Arts and Drama Programme was piloted with nursing students at one UK university and young people with severe and complex ILDs from one special school, their parents and teachers. PARTICIPANTS: 15 nursing students (BSc Year 2 = 10, Year 3 = 3, MSc = 2) and 7 young people with severe and complex learning disabilities (age 11-14 yrs). Other participants were parents/guardians of young people (7), arts/drama facilitators (2), academic lecturers (2), special needs teachers (2), registered nurse (1). METHODS: An 8-week dynamic programme of arts and drama. Sessions included 30-min start-up/presencing, 45-min storytelling/drama with young people and parents, 30-min reflection/close. Sessions were facilitated by 2 arts and drama specialists. The story of 'Ubuntu the Lion with the Long, Long, Mane' (by TNP) was used to explore difference and ways of being. The evaluation methods were participant observation, semi-structured interviews (2-6 weeks post) and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participation in the programme was a challenging, creative, and reflective experience that was transformative for all. Nurses and young people's fears and anxieties about each other were revealed and addressed by participating in arts and drama activities together. Nursing students learnt how to adopt a relational orientation to young people and their parents and teachers. CONCLUSIONS: A co-designed programme for nursing students and young people with severe and complex ILDs can benefit student knowledge and skills and reduce fears and anxieties between nurses and young people with ILDs. With adequate planning and resources, the programme could be adopted by multidisciplinary partnerships between other universities and special schools.

Student life - Open for discussion.

The Freedom to Speak Up review has exposed a culture of intimidation and bullying in many parts of the NHS.

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on elbow flexor maximal voluntary isometric strength and endurance.

The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength and the time to failure (TTF) in an isometric (30% MVC) muscle endurance test of the elbow flexors were investigated. Fifteen men (mean age, 27.7 ± 8.4 years) were tested for MVC strength and TTF 2 times, separated by a 60-min rest. During the last 10 min of the rest period, 1 of 2 tDCS treatments or 1 sham intervention session was administered, in a randomized order, with 1 week between sessions. In the tDCS intervention, a 2 mA direct current was delivered for 10 min through an anode placed on the scalp, overlying the right motor cortical representation of the left arm; a cathode was secured over the right shoulder. In the sham intervention, the current was delivered for the first 30 s only. No significant differences between the first and second tDCS sessions were evident for MVC strength or TTF. For MVC strength (baseline, 66.0 ± 11.4 Nm), postintervention measures decreased by 5.9% ± 4.2% (p < 0.05), but no significant difference in the changes was evident between tDCS and sham sessions. TTF did not change significantly from preintervention (309.2 ± 91.6 s) to postintervention (327.2 ± 128.5 s), and there was no significant difference between interventions. It was concluded that the tDCS intervention did not affect muscle function, perhaps because of ceiling effects, in which the intervention does not enhance muscle function further when muscle function is already maximal.