Conectar
The involvement of older adults as active partners in research is increasingly being promoted to improve the relevance and impact of scientific knowledge. However, the evidence base on how older adults have been involved as active partners in healthcare research remains fragmented. To our knowledge, no review of reviews has yet provided a comprehensive overview of this body of evidence. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to synthesise review-level evidence on the involvement of older adults as active research partners. We address three questions: (1) How have older adults been involved as active partners in research? (2) What terminology, models and frameworks have been used? (3) What benefits and challenges have been reported related to involving older adults as active partners in research?
This study will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science. Eligible reviews will be those reporting on the involvement of older adults (aged 60 years or older) as active partners in research. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and perform data extraction using a standardised form. Methodological quality will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. Findings will be synthesised narratively and thematically, with attention to reported roles, terminology, conceptual frameworks and the benefits and challenges of involvement.
As this umbrella review draws exclusively on secondary data from published sources, ethical approval is not required. Older adults, engaged as independent public contributors, have been involved in shaping the review protocol and will take part in interpreting the findings. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at academic and stakeholder conferences, and used to inform the design of a subsequent mixed-methods study focused on strengthening the involvement of older adults as active partners in research.
CRD420251064947.
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 