Title |
Educating future nursing scientists: Recommendations for integrating omics content in PhD programs
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nursing Outlook, June 2015
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.06.006 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yvette P. Conley, Margaret Heitkemper, Donna McCarthy, Cindy M. Anderson, Elizabeth J. Corwin, Sandra Daack-Hirsch, Susan G. Dorsey, Katherine E. Gregory, Maureen W. Groer, Susan J. Henly, Timothy Landers, Debra E. Lyon, Jacquelyn Y. Taylor, Joachim Voss |
Abstract |
Preparing the next generation of nursing scientists to conduct high-impact, competitive, sustainable, innovative, and interdisciplinary programs of research requires that the curricula for PhD programs keep pace with emerging areas of knowledge and health care/biomedical science. A field of inquiry that holds great potential to influence our understanding of the underlying biology and mechanisms of health and disease is omics. For the purpose of this article, omics refers to genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics, exposomics, microbiomics, and metabolomics. Traditionally, most PhD programs in schools of nursing do not incorporate this content into their core curricula. As part of the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science's Idea Festival for Nursing Science Education, a work group charged with addressing omics preparation for the next generation of nursing scientists was convened. The purpose of this article is to describe key findings and recommendations from the work group that unanimously and enthusiastically support the incorporation of omics content into the curricula of PhD programs in nursing. The work group also calls to action faculty in schools of nursing to develop strategies to enable students needing immersion in omics science and methods to execute their research goals. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 57% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 22% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 9% |
Professor | 7 | 9% |
Researcher | 6 | 8% |
Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
Other | 16 | 21% |
Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 23% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 12% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 13% |
Unknown | 26 | 34% |