Researchers used Bereday’s model to compare the Iranian curriculum with the three selected US programs through four stages: description, interpretation, juxtaposition and comparison. They examined educational-system factors, similarities and differences in curriculum, and the strengths and limitations of each program. Recommendations were then developed in relation to the specific educational and cultural, political and social conditions of the two countries rather than proposing direct replication of one national model.

The shared emphasis on research was accompanied by a central divergence in clinical education. The study characterized Iran’s program as placing excessive focus on theoretical coursework and research while providing insufficient attention to clinical training. The US comparisons included stronger attention to community needs in course design and differences in how credits were distributed between theoretical courses and research. The findings therefore concern the structure and organization of doctoral education; they do not establish that graduates from one system achieved better clinical outcomes than graduates from another.

Another reported weakness was the limited alignment between Iran’s stated mission and objectives and the practical needs of the community. The authors also identified the need to strengthen teaching skills and better prepare doctoral nursing students to fulfil roles expected within the curriculum. These issues could affect the future of the nursing profession, but the comparative design did not directly measure professional competence, patient outcomes, career progression or the effect of the recommended reforms. In addition, the analysis covered one Iranian program and three selected US programs, so the results should not be generalized to every doctoral nursing course in either country.

Based on the comparison, the researchers recommended aligning the Iranian curriculum with community needs, creating a more balanced distribution of theory, research and clinical training, and revising syllabi to place greater emphasis on teaching skills. They also proposed developing students’ professional roles, selectively adapting relevant practices from the selected US programs, and expanding international collaboration. These are curriculum-development recommendations arising from a descriptive comparison, not evidence that a particular intervention had already been tested or shown to improve nursing education. The overall result is a detailed map of where the Iranian and selected US programs converge and diverge, with clinical relevance and the connection between formal objectives and community needs emerging as the principal areas requiring attention.

Subject of Research: Comparative analysis of doctoral nursing curricula in Iran and three US universities

Article Title: A comparative analysis of Iran’s doctoral nursing program and three U.S. nursing colleges: “Michigan, Arizona, and Rutgers”

Article References: Shahcheragh, S. H., Nobahar, M., Abbaszade, A., & Babamohamadi, H. (2026). A comparative analysis of Iran’s doctoral nursing program and three U.S. nursing colleges: “Michigan, Arizona, and Rutgers”. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10655-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10655-3

Keywords: nursing education, doctoral nursing, curriculum comparison, Iran, Michigan State University, Rutgers University, University of Arizona, clinical training, nursing research, medical education, comparative, analysis