| Learning Objective #1: Describe a partnership model that links teaching and research and has demonstrated positive outcomes for students and community partners meeting needs of high-risk communities | |||
| Learning Objective #2: Describe similarities and differences between traditional and accelerated (second degree) nursing students on project outcomes |
Design: A descriptive design was used.
Sample: Traditional (n=61)and accelerated(second degree, n=55)community health nursing students and 23 agency partners.
Variables: Cultural awareness, competence in assessment and intervention for high-risk communities, collaboration with culturally diverse health professionals,leadership, Internet abilities, interest in community nursing, and benefits to partners.
Methods: Students selected a topic for projects from a list developed by partners and faculty. Topics focused on: homelessness: asthma; stress management; nutrition;obesity; prenatal care; breastfeeding;immunizations;alcohol; smoking;lead poisoning; safety; chronic and communicable diseases;bioterrorism. Students and partners completed evaluations measuring outcomes.
Findings: Traditional and accelerated students were more similar than different. Traditional (100%) and accelerated (100%) students agreed experiences promoted cultural awareness; 96.88% of traditional and accelerated had collaborated with culturally diverse professionals; 100% traditional and 96.88% accelerated reported increased competence in assessing and planing interventions, and increased leadership skills and Internet abilities. Differences existed in interest in working in community settings after graduation with accelerated students expressing more interest. Traditional students planned their first nursing position in a hospital. Partners(100%) agreed the assessments and interventions met community needs, and findings were useful in planning programs. Community needs were met through new health programs and knowledge about resourses. Faculty identified new areas for research,including nutritional knowledge and habits of the mentally ill, asthma knowledge of caregivers.
Conclusions: The partnership model of service learning increases the community-based knowledge of students and helps partners meet health needs of high-risk communities. Traditional and accelerated students were more similar than different.
Implications: Nurses and students need to know benefits of the partnership model for meeting the health needs of communities and increasing interest in working with high-risk communities.