In this episode, Ian discusses relative versus absolute risk ratios and number needed to treat (NNT). In it, he describes some of the ways each are used and under what conditions it might be best to use one over the other, as well as what precisely the NNT really means. Finally, he concludes with some thoughts about how interpreting regression output is bound to be a vital skill for DNP-prepared nurses to adequately translate the science of nursing into their practices.

In this episode, Ian describes an issue he sees with qualitative analysis, whereby a kappa coefficient for inter-rater reliability is often met and then forgotten about, once, but that consistency in these reliability scores is problematic both within raters but also between raters. Furthermore, there is an issue of inter-subject disagreement and intra-subject disagreement. In the end, there seems to be a test-retest reliability problem both within and between subjects in qualitative analysis, which has heretofore not gotten much attention in the methodological realm, which Ian is attempting to shed some light on in this opinion piece.

In this episode, Ian riffs off-the-cuff about a fascinating book he's currently reading by Dr. Janice Morse, a well-regarded anthropologist and nurse researcher who pioneered the field of qualitative health research, laying out some of the advantages and disadvantages, as well as some of the limitations, of qualitative methodology and how it ties into the philosophy of science conversations which have occurred recently on the podcast.

In this episode, Ian details a nice paper by McLaughlin, Hartjes, and Freeman who tracked 20 of their own Neuro ICU patients who were receiving the standard hour-by-hour neurological examinations after admission to the Neuro ICU to find out whether sleep deprivation might be related to the potential for seeing increased neurological deterioration or ICU delirium during their tenure on the unit. The proposal is that this effect, if observed, might be mediated or moderated by sleep deprivation. This was a single-arm, prospective, natural history cohort design, designed to look at their pt population prevelance of neurological decline or delirium, and as such is purely descriptive in nature. But these authors did a commendable job in detailing the descriptives and frequencies of their sample, and raise fascinating and important questions which are sure to lay the groundwork for an important experimental literature to follow. 

The title says it all. (Note: The concept of "Nursing Praxis" has been referred to as a kind of seamless union of Nursing Theory, Practice and Research.)

In this episode, Ian passionately describes his reasoning behind the belief that Nursing Theory ought to backpeddle toward practitioners as the existential philosophical enterprise has it seemingly running toward extinction, as it leaps further and further away from what practitioners actually need or care about. Then he reads through 21 definitions of what Nursing is or consists of by the thought leaders of our field from Nightingale onward, save only a few, and discusses some of his agreements and contentions with these thinkers perspectives. Ultimately, as Dr. Rosemarie Rizzo Parse has written, previously, philosophical debate is at the heart of nursing, and it's time we infuse this conversation with some pushback that isn't the naivety of an undergraduate simply not wanting to complete their Nursing Theory paper, because it seems silly to them.

In this episode, Ian decribes two different definitions of what constitutes nursing - one from the 1960s and one from the 1990s, as nursing science trended toward an epistemology much more tightly aligned with postmodern existentialism as it moved away from logical empiricism. This is to provide a glimpse of what may frustrate students about Nursing Theory coursework; it often strikes them as not useful or relevant or even related to their clinical practices, which is why they generally sought nursing as a career in the first place. This isn't to say Nursing Theories and their respective definitions of nursing practice aren't highly valuable, it's just to say that they're not all of equal validity, and undergraduate students simply do not have the time or bandwidth or inclination to sort through them. (Hopefully, they can join us on the podcast to tease these out over time and come to their own conclusions.)

In this episode, Ian continues a conversation on the necessary constituents of what comprise Nursing Science as such. A continuation of the previous episode, this time Ian gives such compelling reasons why we ought not consider nurse scientists to merely be researchers who identify as nurses. In the end, the position Ian lands on is that it may indeed be the case that Nursing Science exists, per se, but that it must be founded on theoretical conceptualizations and conceptual models unique to the discipline of nursing, which necessitates a clear definition of Nursing itself. 

In this episode, Ian describes some plausible distinctions between nursing and medicine and, thus, nursing science and medical science. Beginning with fundamental definitions and philosophical considerations, he contends that there may in fact be a distinct nursing science paradigm set apart from other disciplines in the sciences, but in order to conclude that we must first generate a consensus definition on what sets apart nursing from medicine in the first place. The construct of a 'nursing science' hinges entirely on the operational definition of what is Nursing, per se. In the end, this is an exceptionally complicated question Ian does not have an answer to, but is working to tease out a panoply of possibly viable interpretations. Enjoy.