Challenging the Myth of the Digital Native: A Narrative Review.
digital health
digital literacy
information and communication technologies
nursing education
nursing workforce
undergraduate curricula
Journal
Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy)
ISSN: 2039-4403
Titre abrégé: Nurs Rep
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101592662
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Apr 2023
04 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
30
01
2023
revised:
15
03
2023
accepted:
16
03
2023
medline:
24
4
2023
pubmed:
24
4
2023
entrez:
24
04
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nurses are increasingly engaging with digital technologies to enhance safe, evidence-based patient care. Digital literacy is now considered a foundational skill and an integral requirement for lifelong learning, and includes the ability to search efficiently, critique information and recognise the inherent risk of bias in information sources. However, at many universities, digital literacy is assumed. In part, this can be linked to the concept of the A pragmatic approach was used for this narrative review, working forward from Prensky's definition of the Digital Native and backward from contemporary sources of information extracted from published health, education and nursing literature. The findings from this narrative review will inform further understanding of digital literacy beliefs and how these beliefs influence undergraduate nursing education. Recommendations for enhancing the digital literacy of undergraduate nursing students are also discussed. Digital literacy is an essential requirement for undergraduate nursing students and nurses and is linked with safe, evidence-based patient care. The myth of the Digital Native negates the reality that exposure to digital technologies does not equate digital literacy and has resulted in deficits in nursing education programs. Digital literacy skills should be a part of undergraduate nursing curricula, and National Nursing Digital Literacy competencies for entry into practice as a Registered Nurse should be developed and contextualised to individual jurisdictions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Nurses are increasingly engaging with digital technologies to enhance safe, evidence-based patient care. Digital literacy is now considered a foundational skill and an integral requirement for lifelong learning, and includes the ability to search efficiently, critique information and recognise the inherent risk of bias in information sources. However, at many universities, digital literacy is assumed. In part, this can be linked to the concept of the
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A pragmatic approach was used for this narrative review, working forward from Prensky's definition of the Digital Native and backward from contemporary sources of information extracted from published health, education and nursing literature.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings from this narrative review will inform further understanding of digital literacy beliefs and how these beliefs influence undergraduate nursing education. Recommendations for enhancing the digital literacy of undergraduate nursing students are also discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Digital literacy is an essential requirement for undergraduate nursing students and nurses and is linked with safe, evidence-based patient care. The myth of the Digital Native negates the reality that exposure to digital technologies does not equate digital literacy and has resulted in deficits in nursing education programs. Digital literacy skills should be a part of undergraduate nursing curricula, and National Nursing Digital Literacy competencies for entry into practice as a Registered Nurse should be developed and contextualised to individual jurisdictions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37092480
pii: nursrep13020052
doi: 10.3390/nursrep13020052
pmc: PMC10123718
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
573-600Références
Int J Med Inform. 2023 Jan;169:104909
pubmed: 36347141
Nurse Educ. 2020 May/Jun;45(3):160-164
pubmed: 31219957
Bioinformation. 2017 Dec 31;13(12):412-414
pubmed: 29379260
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Feb 9;21(1):48
pubmed: 33563279
Daedalus. 1978 Fall;107(4):23-38
pubmed: 11610501
Creat Nurs. 2016 Feb 1;22(1):60-64
pubmed: 30188308
J Contin Educ Nurs. 2016 Jun 1;47(6):253-4
pubmed: 27232222
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 09;17(21):
pubmed: 33182337
J Nurs Educ. 2006 Sep;45(9):371-4
pubmed: 17002084
J Nurs Educ. 2016 Dec 1;55(12):716-719
pubmed: 27893909
Nurs Educ Perspect. 2010 Jul-Aug;31(4):251-3
pubmed: 20882868
Int J Med Inform. 2011 May;80(5):332-40
pubmed: 21420902
Eur J Clin Invest. 2018 Jun;48(6):e12931
pubmed: 29578574
Nurse Educ. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):21-3
pubmed: 17220763
Nurse Educ. 2005 Sep-Oct;30(5):212-6
pubmed: 16170263
J Chiropr Med. 2006 Autumn;5(3):101-17
pubmed: 19674681
J Hum Rights Soc Work. 2021;6(2):130-143
pubmed: 33758780
J Nurs Educ. 2012 Dec;51(12):697-701
pubmed: 23061435
Contemp Nurse. 2010 Apr-May;35(1):18-25
pubmed: 20636174
Nurse Educ Pract. 2022 Nov;65:103476
pubmed: 36356324
PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326
pubmed: 20877712
J Nurs Educ. 2009 Jul;48(7):359-60
pubmed: 19634259
Comput Inform Nurs. 2020 Mar 13;38(9):451-458
pubmed: 33955370
J Nurs Educ. 2009 Nov;48(11):624-30
pubmed: 19650607
BMC Nurs. 2021 Jun 30;20(1):116
pubmed: 34193112
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021 Dec 15;284:108-112
pubmed: 34920485
Nurse Educ. 2012 Mar-Apr;37(2):56-61
pubmed: 22327525
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Mar 26;4:5
pubmed: 30962953
JMIR Med Educ. 2019 Aug 19;5(2):e12809
pubmed: 31429412
Prev Med Rep. 2018 Oct 18;12:271-283
pubmed: 30406005
Online J Issues Nurs. 2011 Aug 17;16(3):6
pubmed: 22324572
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;122:230-4
pubmed: 17102254
J Nurs Educ. 2017 Dec 1;56(12):717-724
pubmed: 29206261
Nurse Educ Pract. 2021 Nov;57:103247
pubmed: 34768214
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 29;19(17):
pubmed: 36078463
Online J Issues Nurs. 2006 May 31;11(2):5
pubmed: 17201579