| Literature DB >> 36237954 |
Hadi Abbaspour1, Hossein Karimi Moonaghi2, Hossein Kareshki3, Habibollah Esmaeili4.
Abstract
Background: Hidden Curriculum (HC) plays an essential role in nursing education and professionalism. However, its positive consequences have been overlooked. Thus, this study aimed to explore and discuss the positive consequences of HC in nursing undergraduate education. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Curriculum; nursing education; undergraduate
Year: 2022 PMID: 36237954 PMCID: PMC9552589 DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_325_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res ISSN: 1735-9066
Search terms and filter for Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Eric
| PubMed: (“Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate”[Mesh]) OR (“Students, Nursing”[Mesh]) AND (hidden curriculum[Title/Abstract]) AND (curriculum[Title/Abstract]) = 13 |
| Web of Science: TOPIC: (hidden curriculum OR informal curriculum) AND TOPIC: (nursing student AND education) = 64 |
| Embase: (“hidden curriculum” OR “informal curriculum”) AND (“nursing student” AND “nursing education”): ti, ab, kw=77 |
| Scopus: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“hidden curriculum”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“informal curriculum”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“nursing student”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“nursing education”)) = 17 |
Eric: abstract/title: hidden curriculum AND nursing education AND student=8
Figure 1Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews flow diagram
Reporting quality of studies according to the COREQ* criteria (Qualitative study)
| Criteria | Author (year) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Attenborough | Allan | Alexander-Ruff | Azadi | Din mohammadi | Gonzalez | Karimi | Kumaran | Lee | Fang Ma | McKenna | Peterson, D. T. | Raso | |
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity Personal Characteristics | |||||||||||||
| 1. Inter viewer/facilitator | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2. Credentials | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3. Occupation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 4. Gender | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5. Experience and training | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Relationship with participants | |||||||||||||
| 6. Relationship established | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 8. Interviewer characteristics | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Domain 2: study design | |||||||||||||
| Theoretical framework | |||||||||||||
| 9. Methodological orientation and Theory | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Participant selection | |||||||||||||
| 10. Sampling | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11. Method of approach | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12. Sample size | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13. Non-participation | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Setting | |||||||||||||
| 14. Setting of data collection | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 15. Presence of non-participants | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 16. Description of sample | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Data collection | |||||||||||||
| 17. Interview guide | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18. Repeat interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 19. Audio/visual recording | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20. Field notes | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 21. Duration | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 22. Data saturation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 23. Transcripts returned | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Domain 3: analysis and findings | |||||||||||||
| Data analysis | |||||||||||||
| 24. Number of data coders | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25. Description of the coding tree | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 26. Derivation of themes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 27. Software | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 28. Participant checking | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Reporting | |||||||||||||
| 29. Quotations presented | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 30. Data and findings consistent | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 31. Clarity of major themes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 32. Clarity of minor themes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Total score Evaluation: good (≥ 25 items), moderate (17 to 24), poor (9 to 16), very poor (≤ 8) | 25 | 20 | 19 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 28 | 23 | 25 | 20 | 19 | 22 | 29 |
* Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research
Reporting quality of studies according to the STROBE* criteria
| Item | Item No | Author (year) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Azadi | Kelly (2019) | Ramal (2010) | ||
| Title and abstract | 1(a) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1(b) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Introduction | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Objectives | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Methods | ||||
| Study design | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Setting | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Participants | 6(a) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6(b) | 0 | 1 | NA** | |
| Variables | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Data sources | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Bias | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Study size | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Quantitative variables | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Statistical methods | 12(a) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12(b) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 12(c) | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 12(d) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| 12(e) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| Results | ||||
| Participants | 13(a) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13(b) | NA | 0 | 0 | |
| 13(c) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| Descriptive data | 14(a) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14(b) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| 14(c) | NA | NA | 0 | |
| Outcome data | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Main results | 16(a) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 16(b) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| 16(c) | NA | 1 | 0 | |
| Other analyses | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Discussion | ||||
| Key results | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Limitations | 19 | 1 | 0 | |
| Interpretation | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Generalisability | 21 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Funding | 22 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total score | 23.26 | 26.32 | 22.31 | |
| Percentage | 88.4 | 81.2 | 70.9 | |
| Quality of study | H*** | H | H | |
*Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology. **NA=Not available, M=Moderate, ***H=High
Reporting quality of studies according to the COREQ* and STROBE** criteria
| Quality of studies | Assessment tool | Author |
|---|---|---|
| Attenborough and Abbott (2020)[ | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Allan | COREQ Checklist | Moderate |
| AlexanderRuff and Kinion (2018)[ | COREQ Checklist | Moderate |
| Azadi | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Azadi | STROBE Checklist | High |
| Dinmohammadi | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Gonzalez | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Karimi | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Kelly (2019)[ | STROBE Checklist | High |
| Kumaran and Carney (2014)[ | COREQ Checklist | Moderate |
| Lee and Yang (2019)[ | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Ma | COREQ Checklist | Moderate |
| McKenna and Williams (2017)[ | COREQ Checklist | Moderate |
| Peterson | COREQ Checklist | High |
| Ramal (2010)[ | STROBE Checklist | High |
| Raso (2019)[ | COREQ Checklist | High |
*Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research **Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology
Positive consequences of the hidden curriculum
| Authors (year); country | The objective of the study | Design | Data collection method | Analysis technique | Positive Consequences | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attenborough and Abbott (2020)[ | The experiences and views of lecturers in Using storytelling in nurse education | A qualitative study | semi-structured interviews | Thematically |
| |
| Allan | Exploring student nurses’ experience in clinical practice at contributing to the theory-practice gap in nursing. | An ethnographic case study design | Fieldwork in clinical practice Interviews with students, mentors, and key stakeholders | Thematically |
| |
| Alexander-Ruff and Kinion (2018)[ | Evaluating the impact of a teaching strategy designed to facilitate nursing students’ cultural consciousness beyond the classroom | An intrinsic single case study design bounded by 30 nursing students’ perceptions | Observations of students Self-evaluation Student reflections A focus group interviews | An intrinsic single case study |
|
|
| Azadi | Exploring patient education through the hidden curriculum in the perspectives of nursing and midwifery students | A qualitative, study | Face-to-face semi-structured interviews | Content analysis |
| |
| Azadi | Determining the role of the hidden curriculum in transferring the skills of patient education among nursing and midwifery students | Cross-sectional study | Questionnaire | Statistical analysis | ||
| Dinmohammadi | Introducing the factors and the conditions affecting the professional socialization of Iranian BSN⃰ students | A qualitative study | In-depth semi-structured individual interviews | Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin 1998) |
| |
| Gonzalez | Examining the experiences of nursing students on international exchange programs | A qualitative study | Diaries of students | Content analysis | ||
| Karimia | Using the hidden curriculum to teach professionalism in nursing undergraduates in Iran. | A qualitative design | face-to-face and semi-structured interviews | Content analysis |
| |
| Kelly (2019)[ | Educating students on the hidden curriculum in the development of their professional identity. | Pre-post survey design | Reflective narrative | Describe the data within the surveys |
| |
| Kumaran and Carney (2014)[ | Exploring the experience of role transition for newly-qualified nurses from an Irish perspective | A Heideggerian hermeneutic approach | Interview | Van Manen’s thematic analysis |
| |
| Lee and Yang (2019)[ | Exploring nursing students’ learning and professional socialization during clinical placements by considering the socio-cultural contexts in South Korea | A qualitative study | in-depth and intensive interviews | A constructivist grounded theory |
| |
| Fang | Exploring the baccalaureate nursing students’ perspectives on learning about caring in China | A qualitative descriptive study | focus group interviews | Content analysis |
| |
| McKenna and Williams (2017)[ | Examining near-peer learner and teacher experiences of participating in near-peer learning and exploring students’ engagement beyond the skill being learned. | A qualitative descriptive study | focus group interviews | Thematically |
| |
| Peterson | Exploring hidden curricula in an interprofessional intensive care unit simulation | A multiple case study design | Anonymous surveys | A qualitative data analysis |
| |
| Ramal (2010)[ | Exploring interrelationships between perspectives of spiritual care held by students and educators in Christian baccalaureate nursing programs, and their perception of organizational climate | A descriptive correlational study | UCFK** Climate scale and SCPS*** Subscale | Statistical analysis |
| |
| Raso | Describing how nursing students perceive the nursing profession | A qualitative study | Interview | Content analysis |
|
*Bachelor of Science in Nursing, **University version of the Charles F. Kettering Climate Scale,***Self-Care Practices Scale