Perception of nurse prescribing among nurses and psychiatrists in a developing country: A cross-sectional survey

Nurse prescribing has the potential to improve patients' access to, and experiences of, treatment. The aim of the present study was to examine nurse and psychiatrist attitudes about this extended role in a developing country. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a previously-used, 65-item, seven subscale measure of attitudes to nurse prescribing in mental health. We achieved a 79% response rate. The majority of participants had trained in developing countries where nurse prescribing has yet to be implemented. Across five subscales (general beliefs, impact, uses, training, and supervision), both groups reported positive attitudes about nurse prescribing. Both groups scored the training subscale particularly highly. Compared with psychiatrists, nurses were more confident about the range of clinical settings where nurse prescribing could be applied (e.g. acute inpatient and substance use). Although both groups had less favourable attitudes on the two subscales relating to clinical and legal responsibility, compared to nurses, psychiatrists were more undesirable. Although, overall, clinician attitudes do not seem to represent a barrier towards the potential implementation of nurse prescribing in the study setting, clarity about clinical and legal responsibility needs to be addressed.

Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals

BACKGROUND

Trial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized controlled trials published in key nursing journals that met criteria for timely registration.

METHODS

We reviewed all RCTs published in three (two general, one mental health) nursing journals between August 2011 and September 2016. We classified the included trials as: 1. Not registered, 2. Registered but not reported in manuscript, 3. Registered retrospectively, 4. Registered prospectively (before the recruitment of the first subject into the trial). 5. Timely registration (as 4 but the trial identification number is reported in abstract).

RESULTS

We identified 135 trials published in the three included journals. The majority (n = 78, 58%) were not registered. Thirty-three (24%) were retrospectively registered. Of the 24 (18%) trials that were prospectively registered, 11 (8%) met the criteria for timely registration.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an unacceptable difference in rates of trial registration between leading medical and nursing journals. Concerted effort is required by nurse researchers, reviewers and journal editors to ensure that all trials are registered in a timely way.

The prevalence of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) use in non-clinical populations: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) are new narcotic or psychotropic drugs that are not controlled by the United Nations drug convention that may pose a serious public health threat due to their wide availability for purchase on the internet and in so called "head shops." Yet, the extent of their global use remains largely unknown. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of NPS use in non-clinical populations.

METHODS

This is a systematic review of observational studies. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Lilacs, Scopus, Global Health, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization (WHO) regional databases will be searched for eligible prevalence studies published between 2010 and 2016. Data from cross-sectional studies that report the prevalence of NPS use (one or more types) in participants (of any age) from censuses or probabilistic or convenience samples will be included. Data will be extracted from eligible publications, using a data extraction tool developed for this study. Visual and statistical approaches will be adopted instead of traditional meta-analytic approaches.

DISCUSSION

This review will describe the distributions of various types of prevalence estimates of NPS use and explore the impact of different population groups and study-related and tempo-geographical variables on characteristics of these distributions over the period of 2010 to 2016.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016037020.