To explore the impact of international visiting scholars programmes on the academic and professional development of nursing PhD students and to inform future doctoral curriculum design. Integrative review. A systematic search was conducted across six databases (Embase, Medline, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science) in December 2024, with no restrictions on publication year. After removing duplicates, 1300 records were screened by title, abstract and full text. Studies were included if they focused on nursing PhD students participating in international visiting programmes and addressed academic or professional development. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were synthesised using a thematic analysis approach. Four themes were identified: (1) advancing academic excellence through enhanced research skills and critical thinking; (2) cultivating cross-cultural learning by fostering cultural sensitivity and adaptability; (3) fostering global networks that promote sustained international collaboration; and (4) shaping doctoral education by encouraging structured and sustainable international experiences. These findings suggest that international visiting scholars programmes contribute meaningfully to the academic, cultural and professional growth of nursing PhD students. International visiting scholars programmes provide a unique platform for doctoral nursing students to strengthen their academic foundations and expand their global outlook. Integrating such experiences into doctoral curricula can better prepare future nursing leaders for international health challenges. This review addresses a gap in the literature by focusing on the doctoral-level outcomes of international visiting scholars programmes in nursing. The findings offer guidance for educators and policymakers to design curricula that integrate global engagement, build institutional support for mobility programmes and promote equitable access to international academic opportunities in nursing education. The review adhered to the EQUATOR and PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. No patient or public contribution.
Kung et al. (Thu,) studied this question.