Ce séminaire se concentre sur les approches philosophiques, les méthodes de synthèse des connaissances et sur l'analyse critique en vue de concevoir une problématique de recherche en sciences infirmières. Il permet au doctorant d'élaborer sa problématique à travers une recension d'écrits scientifiquement rigoureuse et favorise le développement des compétences d'analyse critique. Les diverses méthodes de synthèse des connaissances pertinentes seront explorées et appliquées afin d'établir l'état des connaissances sur la problématique de recherche. Ce séminaire contribue au développement des compétences « Contribuer de manière significative à l’avancement de la discipline infirmière » et « Assumer un rôle de chercheur autonome en sciences infirmières ».

Temps présentiel : 18 heures

Charge de travail étudiant : 32 heures

Méthode(s) d'évaluation : Analyse d'article, Animation de séminaires

Référence :
Vérité/Réalité Lepeltier, T. (2013). La philosophie des sciences. Dans Lepeltier, T. (dir), Histoire et philosophie des sciences. (p 217-222).Éditions Sciences Humaines. https : //doi.or/10.3917/sh.lepel.2013.01.0139 Signorile, P. (2018). La réalité en tant qu’expérience construite et relative. Concepts en dialogue. Une voie pour l’interdisciplinarité. Direction et préface Odina Benoist, Jean-Yves Chérot, Hervé Isar, ffhal-02084219f Synthèse des connaissances Ballard, A., Khadra, C., Le May, S., & Gendron, S. (2016). Différentes traditions philosophiques pour le développement des connaissances en sciences infirmières. Recherche en soins infirmiers, 124(1), 8-18. Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J. et Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), article no 245. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y B Browne, M. N. et Keeley, S. M. (2012). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking. (10e éd.). Pearson. Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. et Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & The Health Profession, 25(1), 12-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001003 Grant MJ, Booth A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. Jun;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PMID: 19490148. Levy, Y. et Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 181-212. https://doi.org/10.28945/479 Nicoll, L. H. et Chinn, P. L. (2015). Writing in the digital age: Savvy publishing for healthcare professionals. Wolters Klumer. — (Disponible en format Kindle téléchargeable sur un ordinateur ou un appareil mobile à partir de amazon.ca) Paré et al. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management 52, 183–199. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, article no 13. https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74 Problématique et recension des écrits Ellis, T. et Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. Informing Science: The international Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17-33. https://doi.org/10.28945/438 Jutras, S. (2019). Mon compagnon de rédaction scientifique. JDF Éditions. — (Disponible à la librairie de l’Université et sur le site de l’éditeur en version papier ou électronique https ://www.editionsjfd.com/boutique/mon-compagnon-deredaction-scientifique-9087) * Levy, Y. et Ellis, T. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 181-212. https://doi.org/ 10.28945/479 Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, article no 13. https://doi.org/10.7275/b0az-8t74 Méta-analyse Fontaine, G., Cossette, S., Maheu-Cadotte, M. A., Deschenes, M. F., Rouleau, G., Lavallee, A., Pepin, C., Ballard, A., Chicoine, G., Lapierre, A., Lavoie, P., Blondin, J. et Mailhot, T. (2019). Effect of implementation interventions on nurses' behavior in clinical practice: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), article no 305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1227-x Méta-synthèse Beaucher, V. et Jutras, F. (2007). Étude comparative de la métasynthèse et de la méta-analyse qualitative. Recherches qualitatives, 27(2), 58-77. http://www.recherche-qualitative.qc.ca/documents/files/revue/edition_reguliere/ numero27(2)/beaucher27(2).pdf France, E. F., Cunningham, M., Ring, N., Uny, I., Duncan, E. A. S., Jepson, R. G., Maxwell, M., Roberts, R. J., Turley, R. L., Booth, A., Britten, N., Flemming, K., Gallagher, I., Garside, R., Hannes, K., Lewin, S., Noblit, G. W., Pope, C., Thomas, J., . . . Noyes, J. (2019). Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), article no 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 Thorne, S. (2017). Metasynthetic madness: What kind of monster have we created. Qualitative Health Research, 27(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316679370 Revue d’ensemble (umbrella review) Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H. et Tungpunkom, P. (2020). Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. Dans E. Aromataris et Z. Munn (dir.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/ 10.46658/JBIMES-20-11 Revue de la portée (scoping review) Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., Levac, D., Ng, C., Sharpe, J. P., Wilson, K., Kenny, M., Warren, R., Wilson, C., Stelfox, H. T. et Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), article no 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12874-016-0116-4 Revue intégrative Baldini Soares, C., Hoga, L. A. K., Peduzzi, M., Sangaleti, C., Yonekura, T. et Delage Silve, D. R. A. (2014). Integrative review: concepts and methods used in nursing. Revista de Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 48(329-339). https://doi.org/ 10.1590/S0080-6234201400002000020 Bucknall, T. K., Hutchinson, A. M., Bo., M., McTier, L., Rawson, H., Hewitt, N. A., McMurray, A., Marshall, A. P., Gillespie, B. M. et Chaboyer, W. (2016). Engaging patients and families in communication across transitions of care: an integrative review protocol. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(7), 1689-1700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12953 Revue narrative Thorne, S. (2018). Rediscovering the "narrative" review. Nursing Inquiry, 25(3), article no e12257. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/nin.12257 Revue rapide Garritty, C., Stevens, A., Gartlehner, G., King, V. et Kamel, C. (2016). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses. Systematic Review, 5(1), article no 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0360-z Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J., Reveiz, L. et Lavis, J. N. (2016). What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14(1), article no 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 Lawani, M. A., Valera, B., Fortier-Brochu, E., Legare, F., Carmichael, P. H., Cote, L., Voyer, P., Kroger, E., Witteman, H., Rodriguez, C. et Giguere, A. M. (2017). Five shared decision-making tools in 5 months: use of rapid reviews to develop decision boxes for seniors living with dementia and their caregivers. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), article no 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0446-2 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2017). Rapid reviews: Methods and implications. http:// www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/c931b32600b7495967fe627c77.b0c.00c85a0.pdf Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D. et Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine, 13, article no 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12916-015-0465-6 Tricco, A. C., Langlois, E. V. et Straus, S. (2017). Rapid review to strengthen health policy and systems: A practical guide. World Health Organization. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258698/9789241512763-eng.pdf? sequence=1 Wagner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Greimel, J., Ciapponi, A. et Gartlehner, G. (2017). Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decision-makers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: An international survey. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), article no 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12874-017-0406-5 Revue réaliste Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Westhorp, G. et Pawson, R. (2011). Protocol - realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: Evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, article no 115. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2288-11-115 Rycro-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. K., Kent, B., Schultz, A., Snelgrove-Clarke, E., Stetler, C. B., Titler, M. G., Wallin, L. et Wilson, V. (2012). Realist synthesis: Illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Science, 7, article no 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 Revue systématique d’efficacité Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I. et Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29-40. Tufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Aromataris, E., Campbell, J. et Hopp, L. (2020). Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effec6veness. Dans E. Aromataris et Z. Munn (dir.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/ 10.46658/JBIMES-20-04 Revue systématique mixte Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M. et Wassef, M. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 Revue systématique sur le pronostic Damen, J. et Hoo, L. (2019). The increasing need for systematic reviews of prognosis studies: strategies to facilitate review production and improve quality of primary research. Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, 3, article no 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41512-019-0049-6 Moons, K. G., Hoo, L., Williams, K., Hayden, J. A., Damen, J. A. et Riley, R. D. (2018). Implementing systematic reviews of prognosis studies in Cochrane. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, article no ED000129. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/14651858.ED000129 Riley, R. D., Moons, K. G. M., Snell, K. I. E., Ensor, J., Hoo, L., Altman, D. G., Hayden, J., Collins, G. S. et Debray, T. P. A. (2019). A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ, 364, article no k4597. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4597