Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Journal Information’ Category

An Analysis and Evaluation of the Theory of Planned Behavior Using Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya’s Framework

The current featured ANS article is titled “An Analysis and Evaluation of the Theory of Planned Behavior Using Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya’s Framework” authored by Sungwon Park, MSN, RN and Hyewon Shin, PhD, RN. Download your free copy of this manuscript while it is featured and share your comments here! Sungwon Park shared this message about this work for ANS readers:

Sungwon Park

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) originally developed by Ajzen has long been a useful conceptual framework for my research, including my master’s thesis study and my projects early in my doctoral program. During the first year of my PhD program, I decided to analyze and evaluate this theory in a nursing theory class, and with the assistance of a colleague, I eventually developed this assignment into a publication in ANS.

Despite my generally positive evaluation of the TPB, I acknowledge that its use in nursing research and practice has been somewhat controversial, depending on individual researchers’ perspectives. I remember that I was excited to discuss how theory could advance nursing in my class, but theory testing as well as application of theories borrowed from other disciplines were debated among my classmates in 2019. At that time, I agreed that use of a borrowed theory can be beneficial for capturing nursing phenomena and for contributing to the development of nursing.

To comprehensively analyze a nursing theory, the author’s intentions in disseminating the theory need to be systematically examined, as do later theory revisions. Our manuscript analyzed and evaluated the TPB, which originated in the social psychology field, using Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya’s framework, which was intended to be applied to nursing theory. A theory borrowed from another discipline will not fully reflect the values and concerns of nursing. However, rather than simply dismissing theories such as the TPB from consideration for the nursing discipline, I contend that different criteria should be employed for evaluation of borrowed theories.

In our case, we could not fully apply some of the elements of Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya’s framework in our paper. For example, the TPB does not fully incorporate the nursing metaparadigm or include philosophical statements about nursing. Consequently, our paper recommended consideration of additional criteria for evaluation of borrowed theories. I believe that among other potential benefits, use of borrowed theories in nursing raises important questions such as “what are nursing phenomena?” and “what is the definition of nursing?”

I favor the definition of holistic nursing care, and a prerequisite for holistic care is to understand the human being and everything that surrounds the human experience. Consequently, describing the scope of holistic care is extremely challenging, but the new perspectives offered by a borrowed theory can facilitate understanding of such care.

Considering that all efforts from theory development and testing to application in various practice situations contribute to the advancement of nursing, what is your opinion of using the TPB for nursing advancement?

Properties of Situation Specific Theories

This blog is contributed by Eun-Ok Im, PhD, MPH, RN, CNS, FAAN. Dr. Im is author of the current ANS featured article titled Properties of Situation-Specific Theories and Neo-pragmatism (download at no cost while the article is featured). Here Dr. Im describes her journey in the evolution and development of situation-specific theory.

Eun-Ok Im

This article was initiated from a PhD theory class that I taught about 4 years ago.  The class was discussing the philosophical bases of situation specific theories that I wrote more than 20 years ago.  When I wrote the first paper on situation specific theories in the late 1990s, the main focus on philosophical bases of nursing was given to social critical theories, feminism, and hermeneutics, especially on the west coast of the U.S.  Most of my colleagues admired these three specific philosophical bases for the future direction of philosophical bases for nursing discipline, and we were deeply impressed by the qualitative research paradigms at that time.  Most of us were critical on positivism and its great influences on biomedical science in general, and we thought nursing approaches should be different from the mainstream biomedical approaches. Due to this great influence of the time, my first paper on situation specific theories focused on these philosophical bases as the philosophical bases of situation specific theories. However, honestly speaking, even at that time, I was thinking something was missing in the list of philosophical bases for situation specific theories.

 Going back to the class that I taught about 4 years ago, the students in the class asked me how these specific philosophical bases were chosen as the philosophical bases of situation specific theories, and I mentioned about the background of the time when the paper was written.  Then, I suddenly thought I’d better revisit the philosophical bases of situation specific theories because I myself had also been wondering if I missed something in the original paper. Then, in a subsequent literature review, neo-pragmatism was identified as an additional philosophical basis for situation specific theories.  Indeed, looking back on it, the raison d’être of situation specific theories was highly practical.  Nursing needs a theoretical basis that could be easily adopted in nursing practice and research with high specificity. Yet, I was not sure if neo-pragmatism actually fits with the properties of situation specific theories in the literature. Thus, a systematic integrated literature review was firstly conducted to identify the properties of situation specific theories in the literature and examined the properties from a neo-pragmatic perspective.

The literature review and subsequent examination of the properties of situation specific theories using a neo-pragmatic perspective revealed that the properties of situation specific theories that I found in the literature review were congruent with the philosophical stance of neo-pragmatism. For instance, neo-pragmatism’s declination of the universal truth and representationalism and its definition of truth were consistent with situation specific theories’ support for diversities and multiplicities of truths. Also, neo-pragmatism’s support for multiple truths and objection on the representationalism supports the necessity of different conceptualization and theorization based on contextual understanding, which was another property of situation specific theories that I found from the recent literature review.  Despite this paper on the updated philosophical bases of situation specific theories, I still feel like that something is missing in the paper.  Maybe, about 10 years later, I would look back on this paper, reflect on what was missing, and decide to do another review on the philosophical bases of situation specific theories. Continuous reflection and repeated revisits on our own thoughts may be essential for further development of our theoretical bases.

Considering drastically changing nursing environments with high complexities, I think the necessity of situation specific theories in nursing would keep increasing. The beauty of situation specific theories would be with their philosophical plurality, through which diversities and complexities in nursing could be addressed with high specificity and contextual understanding. Indeed, I am getting more and more inquiries on situation specific theories from nursing scholars across the globe, and nursing is definitely recognizing the importance of considerations on diversities in nursing phenomenon. Neo-pragmatism could provide an essential philosophical basis for our theoretical bases, especially situation specific theories that aim to address diversities and complexities in nursing phenomenon and to be easily applied to nursing research and practice.

The below pictures show the evolution of flowers blooming at my backyard, which would reflect my feelings about situation specific theories. During the past decades, situation specific theories have grown as a new type of nursing theories by the level of abstraction with an increasing number of situation specific theories that nursing scholars have developed.  Situation specific theories started from one theory that I developed under the mentorship of my life-time mentor, Dr. Afaf Meleis.  Then, a few situation specific theories began to emerge in the literature.  Then, now, we are witnessing an increasing number of situation specific theories that nursing scholars are developing. However, at the same time, many aspects of situation specific theories are not fully unfolded, and the refinement of situation specific theories as a theoretical basis of nursing needs to be continuously done. At this moment of blooming, I think this paper would be a good addition to our thoughts on situation specific theories. Again, I think we need to remember the practical reason we started situation specific theories; we need a theoretical basis that could be directly linked to nursing practice and research. What works for nursing is what nursing needs.  Before finishing this blog, I want to give my special thanks to Dr. Chinn for her continuous strong support for situation specific theories, and also want to say how much I appreciate this thoughtful opportunity to reflect on why I started this article and to have a dialogue with my respected colleagues. Have a great start of beautiful fall~

Impulsivity: A central concept into human behaviors

The current ANS featured article is titled “A Review of the Concept of Impulsivity: An evolutionary perspective,” authored by Mohammed M. Al-Hammouri, Ph.D., IBA, CHPE, RN; Jehad Rababah, PhD, RN; and Celeste Shawler, PhD, PMHCNS-BC. While the article is featured, you can download and read it at no cost! Here is a message about this work from the primary author, Mohammed Al-Hammouri:

Mohammed Al-Hammouri

As a certified behavior analyst and an associate professor at Jordan University of Science and technology-Faculty of Nursing,  I believe that nursing is privileged to deal with complex human behavior. Thus, my current work is to bring the attention of the nursing community to an important concept relevant to human behaviors. Impulsivity is a central concept of various behavior modification theories and models such as Hot/Cool System model and the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). These theories and models were extensively used for positive behavioral change in other fields. However, they were overlooked by the nursing scientific community despite their relevance to health-related practices. I feel committed to bringing such interesting and valuable concepts to expand the literature and scientific knowledge in behavior modification. 

The concept is readily applicable to the nursing practice in all settings and human behavior phenomena. I guarantee that reading the article will be an eye-opener for nursing researchers and practitioners for innovative and creative ideas. During the review process of our article, the reviewer themselves proposed novel applications of the concept within the field of nursing. Our concept analysis paper offers a practical definition of the concept of impulsivity in relevance to the nursing practice. We hope that our article will be an important step toward the advent of nursing research in this area.

Family Satisfaction in Adult Intensive Care

The current ANS featured article is titled “Family Satisfaction in the Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Concept Analysis” authored by Cristobal Padilla Fortunatti, MSN; Joseph P. De Santis, PhD, APRN, ACRN, FAAN and Cindy L. Munro, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, FAAN, FAANP, FAAAS. The article is available for download at no cost while it is featured, and we welcome you comments here about this work. Here is the message for ANS readers from the authors about this work:

Cristobal Padilla

            In the context of family-centered care, the concept of family satisfaction has received increased attention as a construct that attempts to encompass the evaluation of salient experiences by family members while navigating the critical illness of a loved one. This concept analysis provides an initial framework for family satisfaction in the adult ICUs that includes attributes such as adequate communication with health care providers, emotional support, closeness to the patient, comforting environment, decision-making involvement, and nursing care of the patient. In light of this work, some of the challenges that remain in the understanding, conceptualization, and measurement of family satisfaction in the ICU are:

  • Studies on family satisfaction in the ICU studies only assessed a single-family member rather than the entire family. The use of the concept of “family satisfaction” may incorrectly suggest that the satisfaction of all the members of the family is measured.
  • Fulfilling ICU family members´ needs and expectations fall on healthcare providers. ICU’s stressful nature, high workload, and lack of communication skills training may prevent them, particularly nurses, to have more frequent and meaningful interactions with family members.
  • Current family satisfaction in the ICU questionnaires does not involve the evaluation of the expectations regarding the items/topics measured. Thus, higher family satisfaction levels may be the reflection of lower expectations and conversely, lower family satisfaction may be attributed to higher expectations.
  • Within family satisfaction in the ICU literature, the use of the concept “dissatisfaction” or to classify family members as satisfied v/s dissatisfied based on arbitrary cut-off scores may not have enough theoretical support. Furthermore, it oversimplifies the complex nature of family satisfaction, leading to an inaccurate picture of the quality of care delivered to ICU family members.
  • Incentives for healthcare institutions to improve family satisfaction in the ICU are almost non-existent. The high costs of the ICUs and the absence of incentives to support and improve the experiences of family members in current reimbursement schemes represent a significant barrier to the improvement of family satisfaction.

Identifying Coping Mechanisms for Veterans Suffering Moral Injury

The current ANS featured article is titled “Moral Injury in Veterans: Application of the Roy Adaptation Model to Improve Coping” authored by Michael Cox, DNP, MHA, RN; Vonda Skjolsvik, DNP, RN, CHSE; Becki Rathfon, MS, CCMHC; and Ellen Buckner, PhD, RN, CNE, AE. We invite you to download this article at no cost while it is featured, and return here to leave your comments and questions! Dr. Cox has shared his personal reflections about this article for ANS readers:

Michael Cox

The concept that one’s morally transgressive behavior may result in lasting harm to the individual’s well-being is thoroughly documented in historical literature, as ancient cultures struggled to explain and cope with warrior reintegration. In more modern times, Civil War soldiers were diagnosed with “soldiers’ heart” or profound melancholy. In WWI, the condition was described as “shell shock.” WWII introduced the term “battle fatigue,” and the Vietnam Veterans were diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, mental health professionals are beginning to understand that these terms do not fully capture war’s moral and ethical implications. As a result, they fail to fully capture the soldiers’ challenges as they transition into civil society.

Shortly after the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, my military colleagues and I began to recognize the harmful effects of deployment. The concerns about our comrades’ psychological well-being escalated as current treatment modalities proved to be ineffective. The inability to explain our observations prompted us to refer to these soldiers “as broken.” Currently, 22 veterans commit suicide each day in the United States, and the rate of suicide among veterans 18 to 34 years of age has risen 80% compared to the civilian population.

Acknowledgment that the suffering of these soldiers does not resolve upon exiting the military; prompted our team to explore the concept of moral injury (MI) in relation to veteran suicide. MI is the damage done to one’s conscience or moral compass when the person perpetrates, witnesses, or fails to prevent acts that transgress one’s own moral beliefs, values, or ethical code of conduct. Our study describes the struggles veterans face as they try to reassemble their lives post-war.

Breaching moral boundaries has created dissonance between the veterans’ conscience and subconscious thoughts regarding right and wrong, resetting the individual’s fundamental identity and impeding their ability to develop relationships and maintain group identity. This inner struggle helps explain the previously determined feelings of betrayal, guilt, and irredeemablity frequently seen in veterans with MI. Unfortunately, I feel like I am reliving the past as the trauma experienced by our health care providers due to Covid-19 is manifesting in the same manner that we witnessed in those returning from deployment. It creates an environment where clinicians, similar to our veterans, struggle to reconcile the incongruence between their perceived ethical standards and those they are witnessing daily. Exploring the implications of this moral discord may be necessary to avert a similar crisis in our healthcare professionals. 

Addressing health disparities: the importance of culturally tailored interventions

Eun-Ok Im

The current featured article is titled “Components of Culturally Tailored Interventions: A Discussion Paper” authored by Eun-Ok Im, PhD, MPH, RN, CNS, FAAN and Wonshik Chee, PhD. This article is available for 2.5 professional development credits, and is available for download at no cost while it is featured! Dr. Im has provided this background information that adds further to their article!

Throughout nursing history, we, nurses, have been on the frontline of the battles against health disparities, and have strived to provide culturally competent care for racial/ethnic minorities who are frequently discriminated and underserved in our health care systems.  Culturally tailored interventions are one of the products from the battles to have us equipped with necessary competence to provide better health care for all human beings regardless of their race/ethnicity. Considering the recent rise of racially motivated violence and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, it would be meaningful for us to reflect on culturally tailored interventions that have been our instruments in the battles against health disparities.

To start this blog, I am including a picture of a modern high-rise building with a Buddhist temple entrance. This is a typical scene of our daily life with a mixture of cultures that supports ourselves as cultural beings. As a researcher working on cross-cultural women’s health issues, from the beginning of my career as a nurse researcher/scientist, I have been frequently involved in the discussions on human beings as cultural beings, the complexity of culture, and culturally appropriate and sound approaches to culturally diverse populations. Many nurse researchers and scholars have talked about how to ensure cultural equivalence of wordings used in the questionnaires, how to ensure the accuracy of translations in research process, and if cultural matching would be needed, etc.  Also, nurse researchers and scholars have talked about inherent post-modern dilemmas in cross-cultural research (e.g., generalizability, etc.). However, it is very recent that our nursing community begins to talk about what makes an intervention be a “culturally tailored” intervention.In recent years, “cultural tailoring” became a buzz word among nurse researchers/scientists who are working with racial/ethnic minorities. With a recent high funding priority on health disparity research, an increasing number of nurse researchers/scientists began to develop and test culturally tailored interventions among specific cultural groups of racial/ethnic minorities.  Cultural tailoring sounds very simple in a way, but it requires researchers/scientists to give their special attention to many complex and various aspects of the interventions.  However, very little is still clearly known about the principles and processes of cultural tailoring although there have been some advances in the tailoring methods (e.g., surface tailoring, deep tailoring).

In this paper, we proposed suggestions for what would be essential in culturally tailored interventions based on our experience in multiple culturally tailored intervention studies, especially technology-based interventions.  Thus, the components that we are proposing might not be easily generalizable to the interventions that are not technology-based.  However, we made an assumption that cultural tailoring in both technology-based interventions and non-technology-based interventions would be similar in most aspects except the intervention medium.  Yet, technology-based interventions do not require physical transportation of the users and may not provide tangible in-person interactions.  Also, there are many unique characteristics of technology-based interventions that traditional interventions might not have (e.g., 24 hour access, required computer literacy, etc.). Thus, I hope that readers would be careful about the interpretation of the findings and suggestions.

Despite the limitations of the findings and suggestions that we made in this paper, most of our suggestions could be easily applicable to any culturally tailored interventions.  For instance, the suggestion to consider if their interventions specifically meet culturally unique needs of target populations could be applicable to any culturally tailored interventions using various different intervention media.  Cultural tailoring definitely needs to address culturally unique needs of the specific population. Otherwise, the intervention would not be easily accepted by the target group, and the intervention would be useless without the acceptance by the actual users. Also, the suggestion on the use of multiple languages and culturally matched bilingual research team members would be applicable to any culturally tailored interventions in a different medium.  For surface tailoring, the use of multiple languages and culturally matched bilingual research team members has been frequently emphasized in any culturally tailored interventions although it is new to find that they are essential even for non-face-to-face technology-based interventions.  Indeed, at the beginning era of the Internet usages, researchers thought that non-face-to-face interactions would eliminate the influences of race/ethnicity on human interactions. However, the findings reported in this paper support that culturally tailoring is necessary even for technology-based interventions, and the impact of race/ethnicity on human interactions still remain even in non-face-to-face interventions using computers and mobile devices.

All the suggestions, however, need researchers’ careful reflections on the benefits and costs involved.  For instance, we suggested researchers’ flexibility in intervention process (e.g., timing, intervention medium) to accommodate special and unique needs of their target populations. This flexibility will definitely increase the recruitment rate of potential research participants and will be helpful in retaining the participation throughout the intervention period.  However, at the same time, this could be a source of biases in determining the effects of the intervention on targeted outcomes of the research participants. Thus, researchers who are thinking of adopting flexible arrangements/strategies for their research participants need to consider possible biases that would be brought up by the arrangements/strategies and need to balance the losses and gains from adopting the arrangements/strategies.

We really appreciate this opportunity to discuss about the essential components in culturally tailored interventions, which would be pivotal for future nursing care and practice with racial/ethnic minority populations.  Hope that this article would urge nurses to further reflect on and discuss about future directions of culturally tailored interventions in nursing and contribute to advances in practical knowledge that is needed for development, implementation, evaluation, and refinement of culturally tailored interventions for racial/ethnic minority populations who are in great needs.  These efforts would definitely strengthen our instruments for future usages in our battles against health disparities.

Decolonizing the Language of Nursing

Daniel Suárez-Baquero

The current featured ANS article is titled “Critical Analysis of the Nursing Metaparadigm in Spanish-Speaking Countries Is the Nursing Metaparadigm Universal?” by Daniel F. M. Suárez-Baquero, MSN, RN;and Lorraine Olszewski Walker, EdD, MPH, RN. This article is available to download at no cost while it is featured, and we welcome your comments and questions here. Here is author Suárez-Baquero’s message for ANS readers about this work:


This paper presents a critical analysis about the dominance of the English language as tool for colonization. We start from the use of the nursing metaparadigm – as the central component of Nursing knowledge – to elucidate the conceptual differences in Nursing foundations that exist due to social and linguistic differences.

For those nurses who learn Nursing in Spanish, the concept of Cuidado – amalgamation of the nuances of Care and Caring – is the cornerstone of the core disciplinary Nursing knowledge. However, this foundational perspective, rooted in most of the Nursing spoken in Romance languages, has been historically underrecognized. Several academic discussions about Nursing concepts and theories that I had with well-known nursing theorists during my doctoral studies brought up an overlooked issue: Meanings differences in the nuances and concepts from languages other than English.

Importantly, this issue has limited the expansion of disciplinary nursing knowledge. Therefore, in several instances, Nursing knowledge turns into a dogmatic believe that cannot be discussed; so that we, scholars who discuss the universality of Nursing knowledge, are seen as heretics in a seemingly homogenous and hegemonic vision of nursing.

This paper is an invitation to discuss, it is an awareness of the multiculturality that must be addressed for the growth of Nursing as a Science; it is a call to the nurses of color around the world, to let them know that the time has come to speak up and share our vision of Nursing. Nonetheless, the decolonization of disciplinary Nursing knowledge cannot be done without the support by the nursing community that dictates “what [Nursing] is, and what it is not.”



Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico acerca del dominio de la lengua inglesa como herramienta de colonización. Partimos del uso del metaparadigma de Enfermería – como el componente central del conocimiento enfermero – para elucidar las diferencias conceptuales en los fundamentos de la Enfermería que existen debido a las diferencias sociales y lingüísticas.

Para aquellas enfermeras y enfermeros que aprenden Enfermería en español, el concepto de Cuidado – amalgama del acto de enfermería y el acto de cuidar con amor o cariño – es la piedra angular del conocimiento central de la Enfermería. Sin embargo, esta perspectiva fundacional, arraigada en la mayor parte de la Enfermería hablada en lenguas romances, ha sido históricamente poco reconocida. Varias discusiones académicas sobre conceptos y teorías de enfermería que mantuve con conocidas teóricas de la enfermería durante mis estudios de doctorado sacaron a relucir una cuestión que se había pasado por alto: Las diferencias de significado en los matices y conceptos de otros idiomas distintos al inglés.

Es importante destacar que este problema ha limitado la expansión del conocimiento disciplinar de la Enfermería. Por lo tanto, en varios casos, el conocimiento de Enfermería se convierte en una creencia dogmática que no puede ser discutida; de modo que nosotros, los académicos que discutimos la universalidad del conocimiento enfermero, somos vistos como herejes en una visión aparentemente homogénea y hegemónica de la enfermería

Este artículo es una invitación a la discusión, es una toma de conciencia de la multiculturalidad que debe ser abordada para el crecimiento de la Enfermería como ciencia; es un llamado a las enfermeras y enfermeros de color de todo el mundo, para hacerles saber que ha llegado el momento de hablar y compartir nuestra visión de la Enfermería. Sin embargo, la descolonización del conocimiento disciplinar de Enfermería no puede hacerse sin el apoyo de la comunidad enfermera que dicta “qué es, y qué no es [Enfermería] “.


Conceptual Framework of Self-Advocacy

The current ANS featured article is titled “A Conceptual Framework of Self-advocacy in Women With Cancer” authored by Teresa H. Thomas, PhD, RN; Heidi S. Donovan, PhD, RN; Margaret Q. Rosenzweig, PhD, CRNP-C, AOCNP, FAAN; Catherine M. Bender, PhD, RN, FAAN; and Yael Schenker, MD, MAS, FAAHPM. In this article the authors discuss new insights about the process of self-advocacy. Here is a message from Dr. Thomas about this work:

Teresa Thomas

The past two decades have seen increasing attention put on “patient-centered care.” Healthcare systems and providers strive to put the patient at the forefront of their services. But what about the patient? What are we asking patients to do when we attempt to be patient-centered? How are we asking them to do so? And importantly, are all patients equally able to engage in patient-centered care?

Our team’s research in patient self-advocacy strives to answer these questions in the context of women with cancer. What happens when a woman with cancer encounters a challenging situation?  How does she assert her values and priorities to ensure her needs are met? This article presents our conceptual framework of self-advocacy among women with cancer.

Through our work with women with cancer, we know that not all individuals can speak up for themselves. Individuals quickly learn that if they don’t assert themselves, their care will at best not meet with needs and at worst be mismanaged and lead to their own poor health:

    • Individuals get lost in the healthcare system because they don’t know how to question their providers or seek clarification about their health.
    • Individuals hesitate to share the side-effects of treatment with their social circles because they don’t want to be considered a burden.
    • Individuals neglect their needs for the sake of not being perceived as rude or questioning.

Two observations drive this work. First, we noticed that research in patient empowerment and self-management focused on supporting patients in performing the tasks of managing their illness. While critical, we also recognize that individuals need support in doing more than just the “tasks” of being a patient. We want to create a language and framework that recognize the individual holistically and point to ways in which they can use their strengths to address their health concerns.

Second, we noticed a lack of patient-driven solutions to addressing disparities and inequities in outcomes. While equipping patients with self-advocacy skills cannot overcome the intertwined systems that perpetuate health inequities, there are ways in which patients can actively assert themselves to address challenges in their healthcare and social support networks.

We encourage others – by engaging in our article – to explore the concepts of self-advocacy, critique and refine this framework, and ultimately develop evidence-based ways to support individuals in achieving the goals of patient-centered care.

Updated ANS Author’s Guide: Anti-racist Guidelines

The recent spotlight on police brutality and killing of Black Americans prompted widespread reflection and change toward social justice and racial inequities in almost all sectors of society – including the realm of scholarly publishing. The “Scholarly Kitchen,” blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, posted a notice of an “Antiracist Framework for Scholarly Publishing” on August 6, 2020 that serves as a guide to re-shape policies and practices in the production of scholarly literature.

I am delighted to share the outcome our initiative to examine and revise guidelines and practices for Advances in Nursing Science. As Editor, I established a workgroup of scholars of color who serve on the ANS Panel of Reviewers to take a deep dive into the journal’s “Information for Authors”. Together we created major anti-racist changes that have now gone into effect.

The changes that we made begin with a fundamental acknowledgement of the power of the published word to shape thought and power structures, and the responsibility of authors in situating their work within existing power structures:

Published scholarly works play a major role in shaping thought and power structures. We encourage authors to include a standpoint statement that describes your position relative to power relations of race, gender, and class. This is particularly important if your work involves disadvantaged populations or issues of social determinants of health and health equity. Examples include: 

  • “The authors Identify as white middle-class nurses. We have drawn on literature authored by scholars of color to inform the design, interpretations and conclusions reported in this article.”
  • “Our work arises from our experiences as able-bodied nurses, as well as our identities as mixed-race descendants of immigrants from Central and South American countries.”

The following is a new section that specifically addresses guidelines related to racism:

The ANS leadership – Editor, advisory board members, peer reviewers and Publisher recognize that published scholarly works are vehicles that can challenge systemic racism and intersecting forms of power inequities.  ANS expects an explicit antiracist stance as a means to provide scholarly resources to support antiracism in research, practice, education, administration, and policymaking. To this end, we offer the following guidelines:

  • Remain mindful of the many ways in which white privilege is embedded in scholarly writing, and engage in careful rereading of your work to shift away from these explicit and implied messages.  As an example, general “norms” are typically taken to reflect white experience only; this is revealed when the experience of people of color are taken to be “other” or “unusual” or worse yet “unhealthy” 
  • When race is included as a research variable or a theoretical concept, racism  must be named and integrated with other intersecting forms of oppression such as gender, sexuality, income, and religion.
  • If your work does include race,
    • Provide a rationale that clearly supports an antiracist stance.
    • Be careful not to explicitly or implicitly suggest a genetic interpretation.
    • Explicitly state the benefit that your work contributes on behalf of people of color.
  • Refrain from any content that explicitly or implicitly blames the victim or that stereotypes groups of people; situate health inequities clearly in the context of systemic processes that disadvantage people of color. 
  • Focus on unveiling dynamics that sustain harmful and discriminatory systems and beliefs, and on actions that can interrupt these structural dynamics.

Please visit the complete ANS Information for Authors to review these changes. We welcome your feedback, comments and questions! Please respond below!

Deep appreciation to the following team of ANS peer reviewers who developed these guidelines:

Helene Berman, RN, Ph.D, University of Western Ontario

Mary K. Canales, Ph.D., RN, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire

Lucy Mkandawire-Valhmu, PhD, RN (also member of management team)

Margaret Dexheimer Pharris, RN, PhD, FAAN, St. Catherine University (Emerita)

Bukola Oladunni Salami, RN, MN, PhD, University of Alberta

Holly Wei, PhD, RN, CPN, NEA-BC, East Caroline University

Jennifer Woo, Ph.D., CNM, WHNP, FACNM, Texas Woman’s University (also member of management team)

Collaboration – DNP and PhD

Our current featured article is titled “Constructing Doctoral Leadership Scholarly Role Boundaries Through Intraprofessional Nursing Education,” available for download while it is featured. The authors are Peggy Jenkins, PhD, RN; Jacqueline Jones, PhD, RN, FAAN; Alexis Koutlas, MSN, RN, NE-BC; Suzanne Courtwright, MSN, RN, PNP; Jessica Davis, FNP, AOCNP, ACHPN and Lisa Liggett, RN, MSN, CCRN. In this video, Dr. Jenkins is joined by three of her co-authors who recently completed their DNP programs, to discuss the value of DNP and PhD collaboration.

Peggy Jenkins
Jessica Davis
Alexis Koutlas
Lisa Liggett

%d bloggers like this: