Feasibility of studying the effects of using NANDA, NIC, and NOC on nurses' power and children's outcomes

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 316-325

  Lunney, Margaret ^a,e   Parker, Laurence ^b   Fiore, Linda ^c   Cavendish, Roberta ^a   Pulcini, Joyce ^d  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE   (United States)

^d BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^e NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Nursing classification; Nursing informatics; School health nursing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; COPING BEHAVIOR; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NURSE; PILOT STUDY; SCHOOL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 10344257197     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00024665-200411000-00006     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. National Association of School Nurses. Scope and Standards of Professional School Nursing Practice. Scarborough, ME: National Association of School Nurses; 2003.
2. Institute of Medicine. Key capabilities of the electronic health record system: a letter report. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10781.html. Accessed January 15, 2004.
3. National Association of School Nurses. Position statement: Nursing classification systems: North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA), Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC). Available at: http://nasn.org/positions/nanda.htm. Accessed June 11, 2004.
4. NANDA International. Nursing Diagnosis: Definitions and Classification, 2003-2004. Philadelphia: NANDA International; 2003.
5. Dochterman J, Bulechek G, eds. Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). 4th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2004.
6. Moorhead S, Johnson M, Maas ML, eds. Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC). 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2004.
7. Hagey RS, McDonough P. The problem of professional labeling. Nurs Outlook. 1984;32:151-157.
8. Leininger M. Issues, questions, and concerns related to the nursing diagnosis cultural movement from transcultural nursing perspective. J Transcult Nurs. 1990;2:23-32.
9. Mitchell GJ. Diagnosis: clarifying or obscuring the nature of nursing. Nurs Sci Q. 1991;4(2):52.
10. Shamansky SL, Yanni CR. In opposition to nursing diagnosis: a minority opinion. Image J Nurs Sch. 1983;XV(2):47-50.
11. Smithbattle L, Diekemper M. Promoting clinical practice knowledge in an age of taxonomies and protocols. Public Health Nurs. 2001;18:401-408.
12. Stock JL, Larter N, Kieckehefer GM, Thronson G, Maire J. Measuring outcomes of school nursing services. J Sch Nurs. 2002;18:353-359.
13. Pender NJ, Murdaugh CL, Parsons MA. Health Promotion in Nursing Practice. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2002.
14. Iyer PW, Taptich BJ, Bernocchi-Losey D. Nursing Process and Nursing Diagnosis. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1995.
15. Hayakawa SI, Hayakawa AR. Language in Thought and Action. 5th ed. San Diego: Harcourt Brace; 1990.
16. Barrett EAM. A measure of power as knowing participation in change. In: Strickland O, Waltz C, eds. Measurement of Nursing Outcomes: Vol 4. Measuring Client Self-Care and Coping Skills. New York: Springer; 1990:159-180.
17. Raygor AJ. A study of the paper chart and its potential for computerization. Comput Nurs. 1994;12:23-28.
18. Lunney M. Theoretical explanations for combining NANDA, NIC and NOC. In: Dochterman JM, Jones DA, eds. Unifying Nursing Languages: The Harmonization of NANDA, NIC and NOC. Washington, DC: Nursesbooks.org; 2003:35-45.
19. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
20. Igoe JB. School nursing today: a search for new cheese. J Sch Nurs. 2000;16(5):9-15.
21. Nigin P, Simms LM, Erbin-Roesemann M. Work excitement among computer users in nursing. Comput Nurs. 1993;11:127-133.
22. Pabst MK, Scherubel JC, Minnick AF. The impact of computerized documentation on nurses' use of time. Comput Nurs. 1996;14:25-30.
23. Jones ME, Clark D. What school nurses really do: a study of school nurse utilization. J Sch Nurs. 1993;9(2):10-17.
24. Lunney M, Cavendish R, Luise BK, Richardson K. Relevance of NANDA and health promotion diagnoses to school nursing. J J Sch Nurs. 1997;13(5):16-22.
25. Redes S, Lunney M. Validation by school nurses of the nursing intervention classification for computer software. Comput Nurs. 1997;15:333-338.
26. Cavendish R, Lunney M, Luise BK, Richardson K. National survey to identify nursing interventions used in school settings. J Sch Nurs. 1999;15(2):14-21.
27. Denehy J. Measuring the outcomes of school nursing practice: Showing that school nurses do make a difference. J Sch Nurs. 2000;16(1):2-3.
28. Cavendish R, Lunney M, Luise BK, Richardson K. The nursing outcomes classification: its relevance to school nursing. J Sch Nurs. 2001;17:189-197.
29. Caroselli C, Barrett EAM. A review of the power as knowing participation in change literature. Nurs Sci Q. 1998;11(1):9-16.
30. Barrett EAM, Caroselli C. Methodological ponderings related to the power as knowing participation in change tool. Nurs Sci Q. 1998;11(1):17-22.
31. Hester NO. Child's health self concept scale: its development and psychometric properties. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1984;2:45-55.
32. Hester NO. Health perceptions of school-age children. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 1987;10:137-147.
33. Natapoff JN, Essoka G. Handicapped and able-bodied children's ideas of health. J Sch Health. 1989;59:436-440.
34. Bailey-Britton AM. The relationship between health and academic performance in school-age children. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 1987;10:273-289.
35. Farrand LL, Cox CL. Determinants of positive health behavior in middle childhood. Nurs Res. 1993;42:208-213.
36. Ryan-Wenger NM. Development and psychometric properties of the Schoolagers' Coping Strategies Inventory. Nurs Res. 1990;39:344-349.
37. Sharrer VW, Ryan-Wenger NM. Measurements of stress and coping among school-aged children with and without recurrent abdominal pain. J Sch Health. 1990;61(2):86-91.
38. Stember ML. Kids as Consumers: Effectiveness of HealthPACT. Final report, grant R01NU009931. Denver, CO: The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; 1988.
39. Stember ML, Rogers SJ, Goodwin WL, Goodwin LD, Swanson-Kauffman K. Administrator's Manual for Grade 4 Version of My Health. Denver, CO: The University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; 1985.
40. Cronbach LJ. Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1982.
41. SNAP Health Center [computer software]. Hollis, NH: Professional Software for Nurses Inc; 1998. Available at: www.psni.biz.
42. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1963.
43. Ryan-Wenger NM, Copeland SG. Coping strategies used by Black school age children from low income families. J Pediatr Nurs. 1994;9:33-40.
44. Sharrer VW, Ryan-Wenger NM. A longitudinal study of age and gender differences in school-age children's stressors and coping strategies. J Pediatr Health Care. 1995;9:123-130.
45. Walsh M, Ryan-Wenger NM. Coping strategies used by school-age children with asthma. Pediatr Nurs. 1994;9:183-195.
46. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health & Human Services; 2000.
47. Anderson ET, McFarlane JM. Community as Partner: Theory and Practice in Nursing. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2000.