Summer respons

The purpose of this discussion is to appraise a study. After reading the study it was clearly stated in the methods design section that the study was a nonexperimental correlational study, which falls under a quantitative study (Englund et al., 2024). Also, this is apparent through numerical data obtained by conducting a confidence, curriculum, and clinical experience survey with a Likert-scale of questions and analyzed data with the SPSS statistics software (Englund et al., 2024). This level of experiment is rated at a level 3 with the John Hopkins Hierarchy of Evidence Guide and is lower in the guide than a randomized control trial, however, it is more significant than expert opinion (Godshall, 2020).

The problem presented in this study is found throughout the article in the introduction, background, and purpose. The problem is that there is a disconnect between how confident nursing students are with caring for LGBTQ patients despite the amount of education and clinical exposure they have received, leading to false confidence (Englund et al., 2024). This is presented in the study as a gap between perceived and real preparedness that is consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect (Englund et al., 2024). It seems to me that there is enough background based on the research of past discrimination, the explanation of the Dunning-Krugger effect, data showing the low amount of LGBTQ curriculum content, the data level findings of overconfidence of nursing students (Englund et al., 2024).

In the limitations section of this study, it reveals that the limitations are that it was a small sample size in a limited generalized area based on a non-diverse population (Englund et al., 2024). There is the risk of bias with the self-reporting surveys causing potential over competence, social bias, and an under reporting of the amount of exposure (Englund et al., 2024). I would agree that this type of study leaves room for a lot of bias for uneven scoring, however, based on the study showing a gap between the education and confidence, it shows some good strength within the study and aligns with what they were aiming for, which was the perception versus actual knowledge.

My recommendations would be to increase the number of hours taught in the curriculum for LGBTQ healthcare content, to encourage self-reflection and the understanding of one’s biases, and increase clinical exposure to LGBTQ patients at LGBTQ centered health clinics. It is important to increase teaching because studies have shown that there is an insufficient amount of formal education in healthcare curriculum related to LGBTQ healthcare, causing added barriers among the LGBTQ community (Fu et al., 2023). In my personal experience, it is clear to me when my healthcare provider and team understand my personal background and address my needs based on my specific situation. There is an immediate level of comfort, and I feel that I am truly seen and cared for.

References

Englund, H. M., Janssen, E., Morgan, L., & Schroeder, G. (2024). Unpacking the paradox: Understanding the gap between perceived and actual competence in LGBTQ+ health care. Nurse Educator, 49(5), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001652

Fu, M. X., Zou, T., Aiyappan, R., Ye, X., Onanuga, S., Tan, A., Smith, S., & Baptista, A. (2023). Medical students’ perceptions of LGBTQ+ healthcare in Singapore and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Medicine, 10, 1236715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1236715Links to an external site.

Godshall, M. (2020). Fast facts for evidence-based nursing practice (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.    

  • Reply to post from Summer Miskin-YoungbloodReply
  •  
/by