From leadership research to district action: The Impact of Doctor of Nursing Practice Education on Career Advancement and Professional Satisfaction: A Scoping Review

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: review-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

ABSTRACT Aim To explore the impact of Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) education on career advancement, job satisfaction, leadership competencies and contributions to healthcare systems. Design The study utilised a scoping review methodology based on Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework. Methods The search strategy was developed with an academic librarian to ensure thoroughness and relevance. Seven databases were searched using MesH terms. Inclusion criteria focused on peer‐reviewed studies examining DNP education's influence on career advancement, job satisfaction and leadership. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes. Data Sources Studies were selected based on their focus on DNP‐prepared nurses, nursing faculty or advanced practice nursing students in healthcare or academic settings, published between 2004 and 2024. Results Twenty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting DNP education's role in fostering leadership, professional development and evidence‐based practice. Thematic analysis revealed the benefits of being a DNP graduate include contribution to professional development, contribution to leadership and contribution to the practice environment. The challenges to DNP graduates include underrecognition of competencies, high educational costs and limited academic opportunities that were also identified. Conclusions DNP education contributes to individual and professional growth, leadership development and healthcare system improvements. However, barriers such as financial constraints and inadequate recognition of DNP competencies must be addressed to maximise the impact of this educational model. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care DNP education empowers nurses to lead healthcare innovations, enhance patient care quality and reduce disparities in health outcomes. Strengthening financial and systemic support for DNP graduates is essential for sustaining these contributions. Impact DNP education is a transformative force in nursing, offering significant opportunities for leadership development and healthcare advancements. Aligning DNP programmes with evolving global healthcare challenges can further strengthen their impact on the profession and patient care. Reporting Methods PRISMA‐ScR guidelines were followed. Keywords: career pathways, doctoral education, mentorship, nursing, nursing practice, satisfaction

Study methods

This scoping review used the methodological framework that Arksey and O'Malley (2005) outlined to explore the impact of DNP education on career advancement and job satisfaction. The framework provides a systematic approach consisting of five key steps: defining the research questions, identifying and selecting relevant studies, screening and including studies for review, organising and charting the data, and finally, synthesising and reporting the findings. These steps ensured a rigorous and structured approach throughout the review process. To analyse the data, Clarke and Braun's (2017) six‐step thematic analysis framework was applied. This process involved familiarising myself with the data, generating initial codes, identifying and reviewing themes and organising the results into meaningful categories. This combination of frameworks allowed for an in‐depth exploration of patterns and themes within the selected studies. In addition to Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) guidelines, this review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) developed by Tricco et al. (2018). This scoping review also incorporates the evidence‐based checklist for improving scoping review quality (Cooper et al. 2019) to systematically map existing knowledge on the research topic.

Limitations

This scoping review has several limitations that warrant consideration. First, the review exclusively focused on studies published in English, which may have excluded relevant research published in other languages, limiting the global applicability of the findings. Second, the inclusion criteria were restricted to peer‐reviewed articles, potentially omitting valuable insights from grey literature, dissertations and organisational reports. The reliance on indexed databases may have excluded relevant studies unavailable in these sources. Third, the variability in study designs, populations and methodologies among the included studies presented challenges in synthesising findings comprehensively. Differences in data collection tools and outcome measures further complicated cross‐study comparisons and limited the generalisability of conclusions. Fourth, the predominance of US‐based studies in this review reduces the applicability of findings to healthcare systems and cultural contexts outside the United States. Lastly, while thematic analysis ensured a systematic approach to identifying key patterns, the subjective nature of qualitative synthesis may have introduced interpretive bias. Additionally, inherent limitations of scoping reviews, such as the lack of critical appraisal of study quality, may have influenced the conclusions' robustness. Future research should address these limitations by including studies in multiple languages, exploring diverse healthcare settings and populations and incorporating grey literature. Employing systematic reviews with meta‐analyses could strengthen the evidence base by providing a more critical and quantitative synthesis of findings.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one school improvement question with teachers. Protect a short shared planning cycle, agree an instructional change and use a common rubric for examining student work. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Review implementation fidelity, teacher time and independently scored student work against a recorded baseline. Examine access differences and competing explanations before attributing changes to leadership. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Tuba Sengul; Seda Sarikose; Violeta Lopez; Holly Kirkland‐Kyhn. The Impact of Doctor of Nursing Practice Education on Career Advancement and Professional Satisfaction: A Scoping Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing (2025-04-16). https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16976

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.