Defining clinical credibility: Protocol for a systematic review

This systematic review aims to synthesise research about the concept of clinical credibility. Clinical practice and what is taught in universities often is not aligned (the theory practice gap). From this observation has emerged an argument that those who teach do not understand the reality of the c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCollegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia) Vol. 26; no. 1; pp. 222 - 226
Main Authors Cardwell, Rachel, Hillel, Stav Amichai, Gray, Richard, Davis, Jenny, McKenna, Lisa
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2019
Subjects
Academia
Allied health professionals
Clinical credibility
Education
Healthcare professionals
Medicine
Nursing
Training
Medicine
Training
Nursing
Education
Clinical credibility
Academia
Healthcare professionals
Allied health professionals
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This systematic review aims to synthesise research about the concept of clinical credibility. Clinical practice and what is taught in universities often is not aligned (the theory practice gap). From this observation has emerged an argument that those who teach do not understand the reality of the clinical world, they lack clinical credibility. Whilst a common topic of conversation among health professionals, to date, there has not been a review that has examined the meaning and significance of clinical creditability as a concept. A systematic review of research and scholarly literature. We will search key electronic databases following a specified search strategy. Title and abstract, full text screening and data extraction will be completed by two reviewers – with discrepancies arbitrated by a third – using Covidence software. Where possible quality assessments will be completed using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) risk of bias tools. A qualitative narrative synthesis of included studies will be undertaken. Our approach to reviewing the literature is intentionally broad. Both primary research and scholarly papers will be included. We have adopted this approach because we suspect that much of the published work on clinical credibility will come from weaker forms of evidence (opinions, case reports, discussion papers). It will not be possible to complete quality appraisals of this type of evidence. In our judgement it is important to make these compromises in order to report a comprehensive review of clinical credibility.
ISSN:1322-7696
DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2018.07.003