Mixed methods systematic review exploring mentorship outcomes in nursing academia

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to report on a mixed methods systematic review that critically examines the evidence for mentorship in nursing academia.

Background: Nursing education institutions globally have issued calls for mentorship. There is emerging evidence to support the value of mentorship in other disciplines, but the extant state of the evidence in nursing academia is not known. A comprehensive review of the evidence is required.

Design: A mixed methods systematic review.

Data sources: Five databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO) were searched using an a priori search strategy from inception to 2 November 2015 to identify quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Grey literature searches were also conducted in electronic databases (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Index to Theses) and mentorship conference proceedings and by hand searching the reference lists of eligible studies.

Review methods: Study quality was assessed prior to inclusion using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. A convergent qualitative synthesis design was used where results from qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were transformed into qualitative findings. Mentorship outcomes were mapped to a theory-informed framework.

Results: Thirty-four studies were included in this review, from the 3001 records initially retrieved. In general, mentorship had a positive impact on behavioural, career, attitudinal, relational and motivational outcomes; however, the methodological quality of studies was weak.

Conclusion: This review can inform the objectives of mentorship interventions and contribute to a more rigorous approach to studies that assess mentorship outcomes.

Keywords: academia; mentorship; mixed methods; nursing; systematic review.