Trend Analysis of Research in the Korean Journal of Adult Nursing for 5 Years (2010~2014): Focused on Usage of Nursing Theories

Nam Kyung Han; Sanghee Kim; Myoung Shin Kim; Jong Gun Kim; Chang Hwan Kim; Seung Hye Choi

doi:10.7469/kjan.2015.27.5.527

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.27(5) > 1076352

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Han, Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim, and Choi: Trend Analysis of Research in the Korean Journal of Adult Nursing for 5 Years (2010~2014): Focused on Usage of Nursing Theories

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2015;27(5):527-536.

Published online: October 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2015.27.5.527

Trend Analysis of Research in the Korean Journal of Adult Nursing for 5 Years (2010~2014): Focused on Usage of Nursing Theories

Nam Kyung Han¹, Sanghee Kim^2,, Myoung Shin Kim³, Jong Gun Kim⁴, Chang Hwan Kim⁵, Seung Hye Choi⁶

^¹Department of Nursing, Gyeongbuk College of Health & Doctoral Student, Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul

^²College of Nursing & Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University, Seoul

^³Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University & Doctoral Student, Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul

^⁴Department of Nursing, Suwon Women's University & Doctoral Student, Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul

^⁵Samsung Medical Center, Seoul & Master Student, Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul

^⁶Amy Cadet Military School & Master Student, Department of Nursing, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Sanghee College of Nursing & Mo-Im Kim Nursing Research Institute, Yonsei University, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2228-3388, Fax: +82-2-392-5440, E-mail: sangheekim@yuhs.ac

Received 8 July 201526 September 2015 Accepted 30 September 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to analyze the trend of nursing theories by Korean Journal of Adult Nursing (KJAN) for the last five years and to provide future directions for improvement.

Methods

The study analyzed data collected from 323 research papers published in KJAN between 2010~2014. Descriptive analysis was conducted with a focus on frequency and percentage for the quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was performed for the analysis of nursing theories.

Results

As for research topics, the analysis results based on the meta-paradigm of nursing show that the most frequent factors of analysis were adult patients in the area of human beings, hospitals in the area of environment, depression, anxiety, and suicide in the area of health, and all the influential factors in the area of nursing. The analysis results of uses of nursing theories in the papers reveal that only 4(1.2%) out of total 323 papers used the nursing theories, which indicates that the linkage and utilization of nursing theories in the published papers for the last five years were poor.

Conclusion

We needs to make efforts at the society level to activate nursing theory utilization in research which is beloved to connect nursing practice, education, and research.

Keywords: Nursing research, Trends, Nursing theories, Analysis

REFERENCES

1.Choi KS., Song MS., Hwang AR., Kim KH., Chung MS., Shin SR, et al. The trend of nursing research in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2000. 30:1207–18.

2.Kim YK., Hwang SK., Kim IJ., Kim JS., Oh HY., Lee JK, et al. Analysis of quantitative research published by Korean Journal of Adult Nursing(1989-2011). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012. 24(1):85–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2012.24.1.85.

3.Kim YK., Hwang SK., Shin SJ. Analysis of qualitative research published by Korean Journal of Adult Nursing (1989-2011). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2011. 23(6):633–41.

4.Hwang SY., Yong JS., Kim IJ., Kim NS., Park MH., Park YH, et al. Direction for development of the Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing through Analysis of accepted and rejected papers (2007-2009). Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing. 2010. 22(1):103–12.

5.Shin HS., Hyun MS., Ku MO., Cho MO., Kim SY., Jeong JS, et al. Analysis of research papers published in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Nursing focused on research trends, intervention studies, and level of evidence in the research. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2010. 40(1):139–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2010.40.1.139.

6.Pender NJ., Murdaugh CL., Parsons MA. Health promotion in nursing practice. 4th ed.New Jersey: Prentice Hall;2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839915589313.

7.Ferrans CE., Zerwic JJ., Wilbu JE., Larson JL. Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2005. 37(4):336–42.

8.Kim MK., Lee HR., Kwon JY., Oh HS. Influencing and mediating factors in health behaviors among stroke patients. Journal of Society of Adult Nursing. 2013. 25(6):610–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994071.n148.

9.Lee ES., Park JS. The Comparison of health promotion behavior, post traumatic growth and quality of life according to stages of survivorship in patients with female genital neoplasm. Journal of Society of Adult Nursing. 2013. 26(3):312–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2013.25.3.312.

10.Park YM., Shin G., Kim JY. Factors influencing health-promoting behaviors in people living with HIV. Journal of Society of Adult Nursing. 2014. 26(2):234–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.2.234.

11.Cha EJ. Predictive model of health-related quality of life of korean goose daddies. Journal of Society of Adult Nursing. 2012. 24(4):428–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2012.24.4.428.

12.Park YH., Lee YW., Kim OS., Cho MO. The trends of nursing research in the Journal of Korean Academy for Adult Nursing. Journal of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing. 2008. 20(1):176–86.

13.Suh YO., Park JS., Yang JH. Kim HY, Suk MH, Shin HS, et al. Analysis of research papers published in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2007. 37(6):1013–9.

14.Walker LO., Avant KC. Strategy for theory construction in nursing. 5th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education;2001.

15.Lee KI., Oh HS. Concept Analysis of cardiac arrest: identifying the critical attributes and empirical indicators. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2014. 26(5):573–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.5.573.

16.Wilson IB., Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995. 273(1):59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520250075037.

Table 1.

General Characteristics of the Research Published in KJAN for Last 5 Years (unit: the number of articles) (N=323

Variables	Characteristics	Total	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Variables	Characteristics	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Total		323 (100.0)	67 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	64 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	67 (100.0)
Researcher (1st author)	Professor	211 (65.3)	56 (83.6)	40 (70.2)	33 (51.6)	46 (67.6)	36 (53.7)
	Nurse	24 (7.4)	2 (3.0)	8 (14.0)	7 (10.9)	4 (5.9)	3 (4.5)
	Graduate student	78 (24.1)	9 (13.4)	7 (12.3)	19 (29.7)	17 (25.0)	26 (38.8)
	Others	10 (3.1)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.5)	5 (7.8)	1 (1.5)	2 (3.0)
Study population (gender)	Female	44 (13.6)	3 (4.5)	10 (17.5)	9 (14.1)	13 (19.1)	9 (13.4)
	Male	14 (4.3)	0 (0.0)	4 (7.0)	3 (4.7)	4 (5.9)	4 (6.0)
	Both	203 (62.8)	63 (94.0)	12 (21.1)	41 (64.1)	37 (54.4)	49 (73.1)
	Unknown	62 (19.2)	1 (1.5)	31 (54.4)	11 (17.2)	14 (20.6)	5 (7.5)
Study population (life-cycle)	Adult	281 (87.0)	66 (98.5)	32 (56.1)	59 (92.2)	61 (89.7)	63 (94.0)
	Growing generation	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
	All ages	25 (7.7)	1 (1.5)	23 (40.4)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)
	Others	15 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.5)	4 (6.3)	6 (8.8)	3 (4.5)
	None applicable	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
Study on the place	Hospital	158 (48.9)	25 (37.3)	25 (43.9)	36 (56.3)	40 (58.8)	32 (47.8)
	Community	81 (25.1)	13 (19.4)	15 (26.3)	13 (20.3)	17 (25.0)	23 (34.3)
	School	32 (9.9)	15 (22.4)	4 (7.0)	4 (6.3)	6 (8.8)	3 (4.5)
	Other facilities	26 (8.0)	11 (16.4)	4 (7.0)	7 (10.9)	1 (1.5)	3 (4.5)
	Home	8 (2.5)	3 (4.5)	4 (7.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
	None applicable	18 (5.6)	0 (0.0)	5 (8.8)	4 (6.3)	4 (5.9)	5 (7.5)

Table 2.

Trends in the Types of Research and Research Designs in KJAN for Last 5 Years(unit: the number of articles) (N=323)

Variables	Characteristics	Total	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Variables	Characteristics	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Total		323 (100.0)	67 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	64 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	67 (100.0)
Research type	Qualitative	37 (11.5)	8 (11.9)	7 (12.3)	2 (3.1)	10 (14.7)	10 (14.9)
	Quantitative	250 (77.4)	53 (79.1)	44 (77.2)	57 (89.1)	49 (72.1)	47 (70.1)
	Program development	5 (1.5)	2 (3.0)	2 (3.5)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)
	Q methodology	8 (2.5)	1 (1.5)	1 (1.8)	1 (1.6)	3 (4.4)	2 (3.0)
	Concept analysis	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.8)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
	Meta-analysis & systemic review	11 (3.4)	3 (4.5)	2 (3.5)	2 (3.1)	3 (4.4)	1 (1.5)
	Others	10 (3.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.1)	2 (2.9)	6 (9.0)
Research design (Quantitative)	Survey	173 (53.6)	42 (62.7)	35 (61.4)	40 (62.5)	27 (39.7)	29 (43.3)
	Experimental study	63 (19.5)	8 (11.9)	9 (15.8)	11 (17.2)	22 (32.4)	13 (19.4)
	) Methodological study	4 (1.2)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
	Secondary data analysis	8 (2.5)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	4 (6.3)	0 (0.0)	3 (4.5)
	Others	2 (0.6)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
Research design (Qualitative)	Phenomenology	16 (5.0)	4 (6.0)	5 (8.8)	2 (3.1)	0 (0.0)	5 (7.5)
	Grounded theory	6 (1.9)	1 (1.5)	1 (1.8)	0 (0.0)	2 (2.9)	2 (3.0)
	Ethnography	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.0)
	Content analysis	8 (2.5)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	6 (8.8)	1 (1.5)
	Others	5 (1.5)	2 (3.0)	1 (1.8)	0 (0.0)	2 (2.9)	0 (0.0)
Data collection^†	Self-reported questionnaire	223 (69.0)	47 (70.1)	40 (70.2)	44 (68.8)	46 (67.6)	46 (68.7)
	Physiological measurements	42 (13.0)	13 (19.4)	5 (8.8)	3 (4.7)	12 (17.6)	9 (13.4)
	Interview	82 (25.4)	9 (13.4)	15 (26.3)	21 (32.8)	23 (33.8)	14 (20.9)
	Medical records	25 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	6 (10.5)	7 (10.9)	10 (14.7)	2 (3.0)
	Observation	19 (5.9)	5 (7.5)	2 (3.5)	3 (4.7)	7 (10.3)	2 (3.0)
	Delphi	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)
Data analysis	Descriptive statistics	323 (100.0)	67 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	64 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	67 (100.0)
	Parametric t-test	189 (58.5)	31 (46.3)	38 (66.7)	43 (67.2)	39 (57.4)	38 (56.7)
	statistics^‡ Chi-sqare test	110 (34.1)	21 (31.3)	18 (31.6)	24 (37.5)	26 (38.2)	21 (31.3)
	ANOVA^§	124 (38.4)	9 (13.4)	26 (45.6)	33 (51.6)	25 (36.8)	31 (46.3)
	Pearson correlation	90 (27.9)	5 (7.5)	24 (42.1)	29 (45.3)	16 (23.5)	16 (23.9)
	Multiple regression	89 (27.6)	25 (37.3)	18 (31.6)	22 (34.4)	6 (8.8)	18 (26.9)
	Logistic regression	34 (10.5)	11 (16.4)	8 (14.0)	5 (7.8)	3 (4.4)	7 (10.4)
	Others	78 (24.1)	0 (0.0)	15 (26.3)	20 (31.3)	17 (25.0)	26 (38.8)

^† Data collection : Multiple responses;

^‡ Parametric statistics : Multiple responses;

^§ Analysis of variance.

Table 3.

Keyword Classifications by Nursing Meta-paradigm in KJAN for Last 5 Years (unit: the number of articles) (N=323)

Variables	Characteristics	Total	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Variables	Characteristics	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n %)
Total		323 (100.0)	67 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	64 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	67 (100.0)
Human	Patient of elderly	46 (14.2)	13 (19.4)	13 (22.8)	5 (7.8)	6 (8.8)	9 (13.4)
	Patient of adult (included elderly)	135 (41.8)	29 (43.3)	26 (45.6)	20 (31.3)	34 (50.0)	26 (38.8)
	Nurse	59 (18.3)	7 (10.4)	5 (8.8)	18 (28.1)	13 (19.1)	16 (23.9)
	Nursing student	8 (2.5)	0 (0.0)	3 (5.3)	1 (1.6)	2 (2.9)	2 (3.0)
	Ordinary person	50 (15.5)	15 (22.4)	7 (12.3)	14 (21.9)	8 (11.8)	6 (9.0)
	Others	25 (7.7)	3 (4.5)	3 (5.3)	6 (9.4)	5 (7.4)	8 (11.9)
Environment	Special care unit	31 (9.6)	6 (9.0)	3 (5.3)	6 (9.4)	8 (11.8)	8 (11.9)
	Shift work	20 (6.2)	1 (1.5)	4 (7.0)	0 (0.0)	9 (13.2)	6 (9.0)
	Outpatient clinic	27 (8.4)	2 (3.0)	11 (19.3)	0 (0.0)	8 (11.8)	6 (9.0)
	Community	99 (30.7)	11 (16.4)	20 (35.1)	25 (39.1)	17 (25.0)	26 (38.8)
	Hospital	106 (32.8)	45 (67.2)	9 (15.8)	26 (40.6)	14 (20.6)	12 (17.9)
	Others	40 (12.4)	2 (3.0)	10 (17.5)	7 (10.9)	12 (17.6)	9 (13.4)
Health	Quality of life	35 (10.8)	6 (9.0)	6 (10.5)	8 (12.5)	6 (8.8)	9 (13.4)
	Depression, anxiety, suicide	56 (17.3)	11 (16.4)	8 (14.0)	17 (26.6)	10 (14.7)	10 (14.9)
	Knowledge	27 (8.4)	10 (14.9)	6 (10.5)	6 (9.4)	3 (4.4)	2 (3.0)
	Stress	36 (11.1)	11 (16.4)	5 (8.8)	12 (18.8)	2 (2.9)	6 (9.0)
	Pain	16 (5.0)	1 (1.5)	4 (7.0)	6 (9.4)	5 (7.4)	0 (0.0)
	Attitude (self-esteem, belief, etc)	51 (15.8)	12 (17.9)	4 (7.0)	13 (20.3)	14 (20.6)	8 (11.9)
	Health promotion	20 (6.2)	1 (1.5)	6 (10.5)	3 (4.7)	4 (5.9)	6 (9.0)
	Health condition	54 (16.7)	3 (4.5)	5 (8.8)	30 (46.9)	9 (13.2)	7 (10.4)
	Self care	15 (4.6)	7 (10.4)	4 (7.0)	2 (3.1)	2 (2.9)	0 (0.0)
	Social support	19 (5.9)	2 (3.0)	1 (1.8)	8 (12.5)	4 (5.9)	4 (6.0)
	Cancer	4 (1.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (6.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
	Self-efficacy	14 (4.3)	4 (6.0)	2 (3.5)	2 (3.1)	2 (2.9)	4 (6.0)
	Other somatic symptom	35 (10.8)	7 (10.4)	9 (15.8)	0 (0.0)	17 (25.0)	2 (3.0)
	Others	107 (33.1)	9 (13.4)	12 (21.1)	17 (26.6)	24 (35.3)	45 (67.2)
Nursing	Patient education	7 (2.2)	2 (3.0)	2 (3.5)	1 (1.6)	2 (2.9)	0 (0.0)
	Massage	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.8)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
	Coping	9 (2.8)	2 (3.0)	2 (3.5)	0 (0.0)	4 (5.9)	1 (1.5)
	Application of replacement therapy	11 (3.4)	1 (1.5)	1 (1.8)	2 (3.1)	4 (5.9)	3 (4.5)
	Application of other program	42 (13.0)	11 (16.4)	8 (14.0)	9 (14.1)	9 (13.2)	5 (7.5)
	Development of program	12 (3.7)	5 (7.5)	2 (3.5)	1 (1.6)	3 (4.4)	1 (1.5)
	Nursing intervention (except above)	18 (5.6)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.5)	4 (6.3)	10 (14.7)	2 (3.0)
	Nursing diagnosis	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.8)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.5)
	Hospice	1 (0.3)	1 (1.5)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
	Effect the issue	140 (43.3)	31 (46.3)	31 (54.4)	37 (57.8)	17 (25.0)	24 (35.8)
	Others	79 (24.5)	14 (20.9)	7 (12.3)	10 (15.6)	19 (27.9)	29 (43.3)

Table 4.

Conceptual Frameworks used in the KJAN Articles for Last 5 Years (unit: the number of articles) (N=323)

Variable	Characteristics	Total	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Variable	Characteristics	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Total		323 (100.0)	67 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	64 (100.0)	68 (100.0)	67 (100.0)
Research	Theories of nursing	4 (1.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (1.6)	2 (2.9)	1 (1.5)
type	Concept of nursing	15 (4.6)	0 (0.0)	2 (3.5)	1 (1.6)	7 (10.3)	5 (7.5)
	Others	21 (6.5)	4 (6.0)	3 (5.3)	1 (1.6)	7 (10.3)	6 (9.0)
	None	283 (87.6)	63 (94.0)	52 (91.2)	61 (95.3)	52 (76.5)	55 (82.1)

Table 5.

Examples of Nursing Theories Used in the KJAN for Last 5 Years

No.	Published by year	Title	Nursing theories
No.	Published by year	Title	Categories	Model
1	2012	Predictive model of health-related quality of life of Korean goose daddies	Practice & situation specific theories	Model of health-related quality of life
2	2013	Influencing and mediating factors in health behaviors among stoke patients	Middle range theories	Model of health promotion
3	2013	The comparison of health promotion behavior, post traumatic growth and quality of life according to stages of survivorship in patients with female genital neoplasm	Middle range theories	Model of health promotion
4	2014	Factors influencing health-promoting behaviors in people living with HIV	Middle range theories	Model of health promotion

TOOLS

Similar articles