To explore new graduate registered nurses' reflections of bioscience courses during their nursing program, and the relationship between bioscience content and their clinical practice.
Undergraduate nursing students internationally find bioscience courses challenging, which may be due to the volume of content and level of difficulty of these courses. Such challenges may be exacerbated by insufficient integration between bioscience theory and nursing clinical practice.
A descriptive, cross-sectional mixed methods study was conducted.
A 30-item questionnaire with five written response questions which explored recently registered nurses' reflections on bioscience courses during their nursing degree was employed. Descriptive analyses were reported for individual items. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses were grouped to reveal emerging themes.
Registered nurses' (n=22) reflections revealed that bioscience courses were a significant challenge during their undergraduate program, and they lacked confidence explaining the biological basis of nursing. Participants would like improved knowledge of the relevant bioscience for nursing, and agreed that bioscience courses should be extended into the undergraduate final year. The importance of relating bioscience content to nursing practice was elaborated extensively throughout written responses.
Although registered nurses reflected that bioscience courses were difficult with large volumes of content, having more bioscience with greater relevance to nursing applications was considered important in their current clinical practice. It is suggested that bioscience academics develop greater contextual links between bioscience content and clinical practice relevant to nursing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,468,369
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#4,423
of 5,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,548
of 310,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Nursing
#183
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
