Conectar
To examine how nurse managers perceive and respond to conflicting priorities between patients' needs, employees' well-being and organisational objectives in decisions regarding work scheduling.
An embedded case study of nurse managers' decisions about new work scheduling in community healthcare in a Norwegian municipality.
We accessed internal and national policy documents outlining the potential benefits of increasing full-time positions in healthcare and conducted 24 semi-structured interviews in January and February 2019. During the thematic data analysis, institutional logics emerged as a theoretical lens to understand nurse managers' conflicting priorities and responses.
We found that nurse managers handled conflicting priorities by prioritising an employee logic in a way that allowed them to combine this with elements of managerial and professional logics within the institutional context.
The institutional logics perspective extends our understanding of how nurse managers interpret the values, norms and practices underlying their priorities.
Nurse managers should (1) recognise that multiple institutional logics may be available to guide their responses to conflicting priorities and (2) carefully consider how to combine employee involvement with managerial and organizational responsibilities.
We studied how nurse managers perceive and respond to conflicting priorities in work scheduling decisions. Nurse managers are embedded in institutional contexts with co-existing logics and their decisions can be understood through an employee logic, but also in combination with managerial and professional logics. Nurse managers should carefully consider their work scheduling decisions from the perspectives of different logics, ensuring that the decisions benefit employees, patients and their employer.
The study is reported according to COREQ guidelines.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
To identify and address ethical challenges in doctoral supervision within nursing and health sciences and propose strategies to overcome them.
Following PRISMA guidelines, this mixed-method systematic review synthesises findings from quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between 2014 and 2025. Studies were included if they examined ethical challenges in doctoral supervision and strategies to address them within nursing and health sciences. Exclusion criteria encompassed reviews, books, editorials, opinion papers, conference papers, studies unrelated to nursing or health sciences or published before 2014.
A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, Education Source, ERIC, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, yielding 1100 citations.
The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the STROBE checklist for quantitative studies and the COREQ framework for qualitative studies. The findings were then synthesised and thematically organised.
Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative, four qualitative and three mixed methods. Ethical challenges in doctoral supervision emerged at three levels: individual (e.g., misaligned expectations, inadequate feedback, student adjustment difficulties), institutional (e.g., high student–supervisor ratios, limited support structures), and cultural (e.g., differing norms around autonomy and academic authority). Supervisors also reported role conflicts. Strategies to address these challenges included improved communication, supervision agreements, institutional support and targeted training.
Ethical challenges in supervision are shaped by individual, institutional and cultural factors. Addressing them requires multi-level strategies, including clear expectations, feedback mechanisms, structured training and culturally sensitive supervision practices. Applying ethical principles fosters a transparent and supportive academic environment that enhances doctoral outcomes.
Universities should adopt multi-level strategies, including supervisor training, mentorship structures and culturally informed policies, to strengthen the ethical integrity and effectiveness of doctoral supervision.
What problem did the study address?: This study synthesises ethical challenges in doctoral supervision within nursing and health sciences, focusing on communication barriers, institutional constraints and the transition from clinical practice to academia. What were the main Findings?: Misaligned expectations between supervisors and students, inadequate feedback and structural limitations, negatively impact the quality of supervision. Doctoral students struggle to adapt to academic expectations, while supervisors face challenges in balancing multiple roles. Effective communication, institutional support and targeted training programmes are essential for improving supervisory experience. Where and on whom will the research have an impact?: The research will inform universities and institutions offering doctoral education in nursing and health sciences. It will benefit doctoral students, supervisors and academic administrators by providing insights and strategies to enhance supervision quality and promote ethical practices.
This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
No patient or public involvement.
FreshRSS 