How Divergent Views of Specialist Nurse Status Affect IQNs’ Skill Utilisation in Australia

Chanchal Kurup et al.

Journal of Nursing Management2026https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/5922358article
ABDC C
Weight
0.44

What the paper says

A total of 115 participants (71 IQNs; 44 nurse managers) provided definitional statements. Both groups drew on experience, education and advanced skills, but with different emphases. IQNs were significantly more likely than nurse managers to prioritise clinical experience as central to specialist nurse status (<i>χ</i> <sup>2</sup> (1, <i>N</i> = 115) = 7.94, <i>p</i> = 0.005, Cramér's V = 0.26). No statistically significant difference was observed in references to education (<i>p</i> = 0.44). References to advanced skills and expanded scope were infrequent and differed in emphasis, with nurse managers more commonly highlighting leadership, mentoring and quality improvement functions, while IQNs more often emphasised clinical autonomy. These divergences indicate a recognition mismatch that may delay or limit deployment of IQNs into specialist roles.

3 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/5922358

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{chanchal2026,
  title        = {{How Divergent Views of Specialist Nurse Status Affect IQNs’ Skill Utilisation in Australia}},
  author       = {Chanchal Kurup et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of Nursing Management},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/5922358},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

How Divergent Views of Specialist Nurse Status Affect IQNs’ Skill Utilisation in Australia

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.