Un análisis del panorama de la investigación en el campo de la formación en enfermería.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v11i3.4167Palabras clave:
Investigación en educación en enfermería, tendencias de investigación, impacto de la pandemia, análisis bibliométrico, análisis de redes temáticas, SciMAT, impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19Resumen
Este estudio ofrece valiosas perspectivas sobre la investigación actual y futura en el campo de la educación en enfermería. Utilizando la base de datos Scopus, se analizaron 20.724 documentos de investigación publicados en inglés entre 2016 y 2023. Se realizó un análisis bibliométrico y de redes temáticas con las herramientas Excel, VOSViewer y SciMAT. El estudio examinó la producción científica, las tendencias temporales, la distribución geográfica, el impacto y la colaboración, analizando también la densidad, la centralidad y la evolución temática mediante diagramas estratégicos, mapas de evolución y mapas de estabilidad. Los resultados indican que Estados Unidos lidera la investigación en educación en enfermería, con epistemologías occidentales que configuran la estructura del conocimiento. Las afinidades culturales influyen significativamente en la colaboración internacional. Destaca la persistencia de la coherencia temática entre los periodos prepandémico (2016-2019) y pandémico (2020-2023), con un aumento de los estudios centrados en la simulación, lo que señala un cambio en las prioridades de investigación. Este estudio contribuye al debate académico al orientar la investigación futura y la formulación de políticas en educación en enfermería. Los resultados sugieren la necesidad de un enfoque equilibrado que integre las tendencias globales con las prioridades locales, con el objetivo de alinearse con la Agenda de Investigación de Filipinas.
Citas
Abantas, J. C., Akmad, S. E., Bonggat, R. B., Jr., Abubakar, A. U., Nuruddin, N. H., Hajan, B. H., Ayangco-Derramas, C., & Anito, J. C., Jr. (2025). Distance learning in focus: A bibliometric and thematic network analysis of the global research trends. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(4), 543–565. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.4.34
Al-Osaimi, D. N., & Fawaz, M. (2022). Nursing students’ perceptions on motivation strategies to enhance academic achievement through blended learning: A qualitative study. Heliyon, 8(7), Article e09818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09818
Cook, D. A., & Hatala, R. (2016). Validation of educational assessments: A primer for simulation and beyond. Advances in Simulation, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y
Cuesta-Montero, P., Navarro-Martínez, J., Yedro, M., & Galiana-Ivars, M. (2023). Sepsis and clinical simulation: What is new? (and old). Journal of Personalized Medicine, 13(10), Article 1475. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13101475
Dalton, L., Gee, T., & Levett-Jones, P. T. (2015). Using clinical reasoning and simulation-based education to ‘flip’ the Enrolled Nurse curriculum. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(2), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.37464/2016.332.1548
Doolen, J., Mariani, B., Atz, T., Horsley, T. L., O’Rourke, J., McAfee, K., & Cross, C. L. (2016). High-fidelity simulation in undergraduate nursing education: A review of simulation reviews. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(7), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.01.009
Fawaz, M. A., Hamdan-Mansour, A. M., & Tassi, A. (2018). Challenges facing nursing education in the advanced healthcare environment. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 9, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2018.10.005
Fry, S. T., Johnstone, M.-J., & Fletcher, M. (2003). Book review: Ethics in nursing practice: A guide to ethical decision making, second edition. Nursing Ethics, 10(4), 448–449. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733003ne626xx
González-García, M., Lana, A., Zurrón-Madera, P., Valcárcel-Álvarez, Y., & Fernández-Feito, A. (2020). Nursing students’ experiences of clinical practices in emergency and intensive care units. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), Article 5686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165686
Grace, S., & Grant, A. (2017). Virtues in clinical practice: Teaching students about the complexities and depth of professional practice. Creative Education, 8(13), 2124–2133. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.813143
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hawks, M. K., MacIuba, J. M., Merkebu, J., Durning, S. J., Mallory, R., Arnold, M. J., Torre, D., & Soh, M. (2023). Clinical reasoning curricula in preclinical undergraduate medical education: A scoping review. Academic Medicine, 98(8), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005197
Honkavuo, L. (2021). Ethics simulation in nursing education: Nursing students’ experiences. Nursing Ethics, 28(7–8), 1269–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733021994188
Kim, J., Park, J. H., & Shin, S. (2016). Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: A meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), Article 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7
Lateef, F. (2010). Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock, 3(4), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2700.70743
Meum, T. T., Koch, T. B., Briseid, H. S., Vabo, G. L., & Rabben, J. (2021). Perceptions of digital technology in nursing education: A qualitative study. Nurse Education in Practice, 54, Article 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103136
Nagata, T., & Kimura, R. (2017). Proposing a multi-hazard approach to disaster management education to enhance children’s “Zest for life”: Development of disaster management education programs to be practiced by teachers. Journal of Disaster Research, 12(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2017.p0017
Oermann, M. H. (2020). Nursing education research: A new era. Nurse Educator, 45(3), 115. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000830
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I. (2009). The utility of simulation in medical education: What is the evidence? Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 76(4), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20127
Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Article 11. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175
Padilha, J. M., Sousa, P. A. F., & Pereira, F. M. S. (2018). Nursing clinical practice changes to improve self-management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. International Nursing Review, 65(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12366
Ramdial, S. (2020). Professional development for nurse educators. International Journal of Nursing, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijn.v7n1a1
Rokhafrooz, D., Alborzi, Z., Shustari, S. S. G. Z., & Heydari, M. (2022). Nursing students' perception of the educational environment in a public university in Ahvaz, Iran: A study based on DREEM questionnaire. Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 12(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.14710/nmjn.v12i1.41727
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). Wie man ein Mixed Methods-Forschungs-Design konstruiert [How to construct a mixed methods research design]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(Suppl 2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Shrestha, E., Mehta, R. S., Mandal, G., Chaudhary, K., & Pradhan, N. (2019). Perception of the learning environment among students in a nursing college in Eastern Nepal. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), Article 382. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1835-0
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain, 9(1), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463714541642
Smith, S. D., Thompson, C. E., & Sims, S. (2020). Adapting a nurse-managed mobile simulation program to meet rural health nursing continuing education needs. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 51(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20200115-07
Sowerby, H. (2015). Perceptions on the efficacy of simulation. Open Journal of Nursing, 5(12), 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojn.2015.512119
Tanner, C. A. (2006). Thinking like a nurse: A research-based model of clinical judgment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(6), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
Thompson, C. J. (2017). Research priorities for nursing education. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 31(5), 285–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000317
Vanaki, Z., & Hakim, A. (2019). The impact of high-fidelity simulation on clinical judgment and self-confidence in nursing students. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 24(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_80_18
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Genelyn S. Viadnes, Jovito C. Jr ANITO
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
O periodico Diversitas Journal expressa que os artigos são de unica responsabilidade dos Autores, conhecedores da legislação Brasileira e internacional. Os artigos são revisados pelos pares e devem ter o cuidado de avisar da possível incidencia de plagiarismo. Contudo o plagio é uma ação incontestavel dos autores. A Diversitas Journal não publicará artigos com indicios de Plagiarismos. Artigos com plagios serão tratados em conformidade com os procedimentos de plagiarismo COPE.
A violação dos direitos autorais constitui crime, previsto no artigo 184, do Código Penal Brasileiro:
“Art. 184 Violar direitos de autor e os que lhe são conexos: Pena – detenção, de 3 (três) meses a 1 (um) ano, ou multa. § 1o Se a violação consistir em reprodução total ou parcial, com intuito de lucro direto ou indireto, por qualquer meio ou processo, de obra intelectual, interpretação, execução ou fonograma, sem autorização expressa do autor, do artista intérprete ou executante, do produtor, conforme o caso, ou de quem os represente: Pena – reclusão, de 2 (dois) a 4 (quatro) anos, e multa.”
