Descriptive analysis advocates for systematic reviews as DNP projects, highlighting their alignment with evidence synthesis and practice change.
Aims To advocate for the systematic review as a rigorous, competency‐aligned option for the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) project. Methods A descriptive and conceptual analysis was used, drawing on existing literature, historical context, and a case study of a three‐semester curriculum integrating systematic review methodology. Data sources included peer‐reviewed research, professional guidelines, and faculty experience in teaching and mentoring DNP students. Results Integrating systematic reviews as DNP projects equips students with competencies in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal, knowledge translation, and project management. A three‐semester scaffolded approach to conducting a systematic review has the potential to foster strong student engagement, build essential skills, and prepare graduates to lead evidence‐based practice change. Conclusions Systematic reviews meet DNP project criteria when paired with practice‐focused implementation and evaluation components. This approach offers an alternative where site access, time, or feasibility limits primary data collection, while ensuring methodological rigor and professional relevance. Impact Adopting systematic reviews as DNP projects can reduce clinical site burden, expand project opportunities, and strengthen evidence‐based practice capacity in nursing. Broader acceptance and standardization of this model could enhance practice‐based doctoral education globally. Patient or Public Contributions No Patient or Public Contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vitale et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: