Research Priorities for Nursing Professional Development

Harper et al. (2012) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

nursing professional development

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?

North America - USA

Why was it conducted at all?

In their integrative review of professional development research, Krugman and Warren (2011) found an increasing volume of research in NPD but cited several deficits in the body of research reviewed. Among these deficits were repetition of previous studies and failure of studies to make a significant contribution to the knowledge base of the NPD specialty. Krugman and Warren suggested that research be concentrated in areaswhere research gaps exist in the current NPD literature. Hence, the authors rec ommended that the NNSDO Research Committee impose rigorous criteria for awarding research grants to research ers whose studies potentially would advance existing knowledge or provide new knowledge for the specialty. As a result of Krugman and Warren's (2011) appeal, the NNSDO Research Committee's Research Priority Task Force determined that the question guiding its charge was, ‘‘What are the research priorities for NPD for the next 5 years?'' The group agreed that these research priori ties should reflect the priorities of the specialty, not just NNSDO. In addition, they should support and give credibility to the specialty. Five years was determined to be the maximum span for the priorities because of the rapidly evolving nature of health care and NPD.

What was the objective?

to determine the nursing professional development research priorities for the next 5 years as identified by experts in the specialty

What was the outcome?

a list of 24 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: literature review: based on literature review a list of priorities developed, list of 51 potential research priorities compiled. Step 2: Delphi round 1: list of 40 research topics, participants were asked to rate the importance of each topic, task force decided to keep items that more than 50% of the participants scored as 5 or items that scored an overall mean of 4.5 or higher. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to re-rate based on group rating of round 1

Which stakeholders took part?

Members of national nursing staff development organization. 13 participants in all 2 rounds.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Experts were identified as current or former members of the board of directors of a national NPD organization or those involved in writing, editing, or publication of NPD certification review texts, NPD jour nals, or the scope and standards for the specialty.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.