| Literature DB >> 32021546 |
Kerstin Herrström1, Stina Larsson1, Eva-Lena Einberg2, Marie Nilsson2, Kerstin Blomqvist2, Pernilla Garmy2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of candidate theses in baccalaureate nursing programs in Sweden are written as literature studies. Being able to carry out a systematic and structured literature search is an essential part of thesis-related work. AIM: The aim of the current study was to investigate changes in nursing students' search strategies in candidate theses.Entities:
Keywords: information literacy; information retrieval; library instruction; literature-review-based candidate thesis; nurse education; nursing program; search strategies
Year: 2020 PMID: 32021546 PMCID: PMC6982449 DOI: 10.2147/AMEP.S227547
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract ISSN: 1179-7258
Examples of Learning Activities
Developing the students’ systematic search strategies and techniques Increasing knowledge about the structures of bibliographic databases Guiding the students in their working process, for example, to design a research question, identifying the meaning-bearing concepts, and finding relevant sets of search terms Developing a reflective approach to search processes and working processes Repeated supervision sessions with reflection of search processes Search workshops, learning resources, and instructional films Using search documents for formative and summative assessment |
Frequencies and Percentages of the Search Strategies in a Random Sample of Literature-Based Candidate Theses (n = 89) from the Years 2012, 2014, and 2016
| 2012 n=32 | 2014 n=29 | 2016 n=28 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, n (%) | 4 (12.5) | 2 (6.9) | 14 (50.0) |
| No, n (%) | 28 (87.5) | 27 (93.1) | 13 (46.4) |
| Not clear, n (%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (3.6) |
| Yes, n (%) | 2 (6.3) | 3 (10.4) | 21 (75.0) |
| No, n (%) | 30 (93.7) | 26 (89.6) | 5 (17.9) |
| Not clear, n (%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (7.1) |
| Yes, n (%) | 7 (21.9) | 6 (20.7) | 27 (96.4) |
| No, n (%) | 25 (78.1) | 23 (79.3) | 1 (3.6) |
| Cinahl headings, n (%) | 2 (6.3) | 8 (27.6) | 26 (92.9) |
| MeSH, n (%) | 4 (12.5) | 10 (34.4) | 21 (75.0) |
| Free text/all field, n (%) | 14 (43.7) | 11 (37.9) | 27 (96.4) |
| Title/abstract, n (%) | 28 (87.5) | 18 (62.1) | 0 |
| Use of block search, n (%) | 1 (3.4) | 2 (6.8) | 22 (78.5) |
| Yes, n (%) | 13 (40.7) | 12 (41.4) | 18 (64.3) |
| No, n (%) | 18 (56.2) | 17 (58.6) | 9 (32.1) |
| Not clear, n (%) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 1 (3.6) |
| Yes, n (%) | 12 (37.5) | 11 (37.9) | 17 (60.7) |
| No, n (%) | 18 (56.3) | 16 (55.2) | 8 (28.6) |
| Not clear, n (%) | 2 (6.2) | 2(6.9) | 3 (10.7) |
Result from the Analysis of the Search Strategies in a Random Sample of Literature-Based Candidate Theses (n=89) from the Years 2012, 2014, and 2016
| 2012 and 2014 n=61 | 2016 n=28 | p-valuea | |
|---|---|---|---|
| <.0001 | |||
| Yes, n (%) | 6 (9.8) | 14 (50.0) | |
| No, n (%) | 55 (90.2) | 13 (46.4) | |
| Not clear, n (%) | 0 | 1 (3.6) | |
| <.0001 | |||
| Yes, n (%) | 5 (8.2) | 21 (75.0) | |
| No, n (%) | 56 (91.8) | 5 (17.9) | |
| Not clear, n (%) | 0 | 2 (7.1) | |
| <.0001 | |||
| Yes, n (%) | 13 (21.3) | 27 (96.4) | |
| No, n (%) | 48 (78.7) | 1 (3.6) | |
| Cinahl headings, n (%) | 10 (16.7) | 26 (92.9) | <.0001 |
| MeSH, n (%) | 14 (23.0) | 21 (75.0) | <.0001 |
| Free text/all field, n (%) | 25 (41.0) | 27 (96.4) | <.0001 |
| Title/abstract, n (%) | 46 (75.4) | 0 | 0.001 |
| Use of block search, n (%) | 3 (4.9) | 22 (78.5) | <.0001 |
| 0.229 | |||
| Yes, n (%) | 25 (41.0) | 18 (64.3) | |
| No, n (%) | 35 (57.4) | 9 (32.1) | |
| Not clear, n (%) | 1 (1.6) | 1 (3.6) | |
| 0.223 | |||
| Yes, n (%) | 23 (37.7) | 17 (60.7) | |
| No, n (%) | 34 (55.7) | 8 (28.6) | |
| Not clear, n (%) | 4 (6.5) | 3 (10.7) |
Note: aP-value = Chi Square.