Do you think ADN programs will really be phased out?

[Nursetobe25]

Like they have up in Canada? There's no doubt that more and more places with be requiring bachelors in Nursing but do you really think Associate nursing degrees will become obsolete altogether?

I think this would be a bad idea because I think there are many great future nursing out there who either don't have the money to attend a 4 year university or due to life issues cant commit to a four year program. what do you think?

[MunoRN, RN]

...Moreover, clinical trails required by the FDA are funded by the pharma company promoting the product yet medicine/nursing considers these the gold standards in science...

I hope you don't really believe that. In terms of types of studies, RCT's are considered the gold standard, and there are no RCT's comparing ADN nurses and BSN nurses. Even then, RCT's can be artfully and strategically flawed, such as the COMET study for carvedilol or the various studies that came out to oppose levalbuterol, which I would hope anyone utilizing this data would be aware of and apply necessary scrutiny.

There is likely some or even a lot of truth to these studies, but it's important to keep in mind the limitations of these studies which then limits what they actually say. One the more important things we seem to forget is that none of these studies measure the effectiveness of today's ADN programs.

[MunoRN, RN]

But why not give those 2nd degree folks a BSN in the same time (and at the same cost) as the ADN program? It wouldn't be significantly harder ... and they would end up with the higher degree and more career opportunities? That's what I am suggesting. The BSN may have cost $35K in your state at that time -- but that does not HAVE to remain true. The 2nd degree BSN doesn't have to cost that much, and wouldn't cost that much if it were offered by the same schools now offering ADN's taking 2 or 3 years.

Those people didn't mind getting an ADN back then ... but maybe some of them mind now, or will mind in the future if/when they want promotions or they want to go to grad school and find that they need to take extra classes to meet the current/future requirements. When they feel the limits of the opportunities available to them with only the ADN, some of those people may wish they had gone to a 15-18 month 2nd degee BSN program rather than to an ADN program.

This was only a few years ago so I doubt too much as changed in how ADN students view the availability of an ADN route.

Ideally we would just 'upgrade' ADN programs to BSN programs, but unfortunately that's not something current BSN programs are interested in and they have significant control over whether or not ADN programs can transition into BSN programs.

[BostonFNP, APRN]

I hope you don't really believe that. In terms of types of studies, RCT's are considered the gold standard, and there are no RCT's comparing ADN nurses and BSN nurses. Even then, RCT's can be artfully and strategically flawed, such as the COMET study for carvedilol or the various studies that came out to oppose levalbuterol, which I would hope anyone utilizing this data would be aware of and apply necessary scrutiny.

There is likely some or even a lot of truth to these studies, but it's important to keep in mind the limitations of these studies which then limits what they actually say. One the more important things we seem to forget is that none of these studies measure the effectiveness of today's ADN programs.

There are always bad apples. The peer review process does a good job at limiting this.

But I am glad you brought that up. You know what those retracted studies have in common? Evidence refuting them. Where is the evidence refuting the dozen published studies in the topic? If there is bias it should be easily refuted and published.

Studies do not prove causality, we know that. There is truth in the fact these results have shown close associations that have been repeated both national and internationally.

[MunoRN, RN]

There are always bad apples. The peer review process does a good job at limiting this.

But I am glad you brought that up. You know what those retracted studies have in common? Evidence refuting them. Where is the evidence refuting the dozen published studies in the topic? If there is bias it should be easily refuted and published.

Studies do not prove causality, we know that. There is truth in the fact these results have shown close associations that have been repeated both national and internationally.

These aren't actually retracted studies, and the peer review process has done a pretty bad job of limiting this. Like all studies, these are still useful so long as one understands what a study actually says and what it may not actually say.

Opposing studies certainly add something to determining the accuracy of research, but it's by no means necessary to apply some scientific rigor to the accuracy of a study.

So what are the close associations these study's show? Is just calling a program "BSN" enough to produce better outcomes?