Technology-Supported Guidance Models Stimulating the Development of Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Systematic Review

Background: Nursing education has increasingly focused on critical thinking among nursing students, as critical thinking is a desired outcome of nursing education. Particular attention is given to the potential of technological tools in guiding nursing students to stimulate the development of critic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zlamal, Jaroslav, Gjevjon, Edith Roth, Fossum, Mariann, Solberg, Marianne Trygg, Steindal, Simen Alexander, Strandell-Laine, Camilla, Larsen, Marie Hamilton, Nes, Andrea Aparecida Gonçalves
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Klinisk praksis
Sykepleierutdanningsforskning
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Nursing education has increasingly focused on critical thinking among nursing students, as critical thinking is a desired outcome of nursing education. Particular attention is given to the potential of technological tools in guiding nursing students to stimulate the development of critical thinking; however, the general landscape, facilitators, and challenges of these guidance models remain unexplored, and no previous mixed methods systematic review on the subject has been identified. Objective: This study aims to synthesize existing evidence on technology-supported guidance models used in nursing education to stimulate the development of critical thinking in nursing students in clinical practice. Methods: This mixed methods systematic review adopted a convergent, integrated design to facilitate thematic synthesis. This study followed the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Results: We identified 3 analytical themes: learning processes implemented to stimulate critical thinking, organization of the learning process to stimulate critical thinking, and factors influencing the perception of the learning process. We also identified 4 guidance models, all based on facilitator or preceptorship models using tailored instructional or learning strategies and one or several technological tools that were either generic or custom-made for specific outcomes. The main facilitators of these technology-supported guidance models were nurse educators or nurse preceptors, and the main challenges in using technology-supported guidance models were the stress associated with technical difficulties or increased cognitive load. Conclusions: Although we were able to identify 4 technology-supported guidance models, our results indicate a research gap regarding the use of these models in nursing education, with the specific aim of stimulating the development of critical thinking. Both nurse preceptors and nurse educators play a crucial role in the development of critical thinking among nursing students, and technology is essential for such development. However, technology-supported guidance models should be supervised to mitigate the associated stress.