The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare students: Scoping review
Abstract
AIM This scoping review aimed to consolidate evidence of the learning styles, preferences and needs of Generation (Gen) Z healthcare students. BACKGROUND It is essential to update the educational framework and pedagogy to meet each generation's distinct learning styles and preferences. DESIGN A scoping review of published and unpublished data. METHODS Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest and Scopus) were searched for studies written in English from June 2016 to July 2021. The Arksey and O'Malley (2005) five-stage framework was adopted to guide this review: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results using a thematic analysis. RESULTS Seventeen studies were included and based on the thematic analysis, four themes were identified: (1) attributes of Gen Z healthcare students; (2) learning styles of Gen Z healthcare students; (3) learning preferences and needs of Gen Z healthcare students; and (4) teaching the Gen Z healthcare students: future directions and recommendations for educators. The findings implied more culturally diverse studies that adopt the mixed-methods or qualitative design are needed to capture deeper insights about Gen Z and in examining the effectiveness of technology integration and digital storytelling to boost students' learning and confidence in their future careers. CONCLUSIONS Technology, campus resources and self-care strategies must be carefully integrated and planned to ensure an optimal and a safe learning environment for the students. The specific preferences and needs of the unique healthcare disciplines and educational subjects could be examined. A theory-based framework could be considered in designing future pedagogy. These future directions could allow educators to initiate vital change agents in guiding, supporting and nurturing students across generations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
S., N. L. (2017) · doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 · Cited by 14,051
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702617723376 · Cited by 1,705
Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000410 · Cited by 1,469
Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., & Wentz, R. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1190 · Cited by 340
Cited by
Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3 · Cited by 634
A scoping review of gen z nursing students: learning preferences and educator strategies
Dodson, T. M., & Thompson-Hairston, K. (2025) · Teaching and Learning in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.teln.2024.11.007 · Cited by 24
ChatGPT and generation 'Z': a study on the usage rates of ChatGPT
Babu, M. A., Yusuf, K. M., Eni, L. N., Jaman, S. M. S., & Sharmin, M. R. (2024) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101163 · Cited by 19
Jang, S. J., & Lee, H. (2022) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13706 · Cited by 18
Ndebele, C., Marongwe, N., Ncanywa, T., Matope, S., Ginyigazi, Z., Chisango, G., Msindwana, P. N., & Garidzirai, R. (2024) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Education Research · doi:10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.07 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Shorey, S., Chan, V., Rajendran, P., & Ang, E.
- Venue
- Nurse Education in Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-11
- Volume
- 57
- Pages
- 103247
- ISSN
- 1471-5953 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3209807092
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 68.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare students: Scoping review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103247
- The paper
- Shorey, S., Chan, V., Rajendran, P., & Ang, E. (2021). Learning styles, preferences and needs of generation Z healthcare students: Scoping review. Nurse Education in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103247
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.