122
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Interventions that have a better than random chance of increasing nurses' use of research are important to the delivery of quality patient care. However, few reports exist of successful research utilization in nursing interventions. Systematic identification and evaluation of individual characteristics associated with and predicting research utilization may inform the development of research utilization interventions.

          Objective

          To update the evidence published in a previous systematic review on individual characteristics influencing research utilization by nurses.

          Methods

          As part of a larger systematic review on research utilization instruments, 12 online bibliographic databases were searched. Hand searching of specialized journals and an ancestry search was also conducted. Randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational study designs examining the association between individual characteristics and nurses' use of research were eligible for inclusion. Studies were limited to those published in the English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian languages. A vote counting approach to data synthesis was taken.

          Results

          A total of 42,770 titles were identified, of which 501 were retrieved. Of these 501 articles, 45 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Articles assessed research utilization in general (n = 39) or kinds of research utilization (n = 6) using self-report survey measures. Individual nurse characteristics were classified according to six categories: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, education, professional characteristics, and socio-demographic/socio-economic characteristics. A seventh category, critical thinking, emerged in studies examining kinds of research utilization. Positive relationships, at statistically significant levels, for general research utilization were found in four categories: beliefs and attitudes, information seeking, education, and professional characteristics. The only characteristic assessed in a sufficient number of studies and with consistent findings for the kinds of research utilization was attitude towards research; this characteristic had a positive association with instrumental and overall research utilization.

          Conclusions

          This review reinforced conclusions in the previous review with respect to positive relationships between general research utilization and: beliefs and attitudes, and current role. Furthermore, attending conferences/in-services, having a graduate degree in nursing, working in a specialty area, and job satisfaction were also identified as individual characteristics important to research utilization. While these findings hold promise as potential targets of future research utilization interventions, there were methodological problems inherent in many of the studies that necessitate their findings be replicated in further research using more robust study designs and multivariate assessment methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

          To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Individual determinants of research utilization: a systematic review.

            In order to design interventions that increase research use in nursing, it is necessary to have an understanding of what influences research use. To report findings on a systematic review of studies that examine individual characteristics of nurses and how they influence the utilization of research. A survey of published articles in English that examine the influence of individual factors on the research utilization behaviour of nurses, without restriction of the study design, from selected computerized databases and hand searches. Articles had to measure one or more individual determinants of research utilization, measure the dependent variable (research utilization), and evaluate the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The studies also had to indicate the direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, report a P-value and the statistic used, and indicate the magnitude of the relationship. Six categories of potential individual determinants were identified: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, professional characteristics, education and other socio-economic factors. Research design, sampling, measurement, and statistical analysis were examined to evaluate methodological quality. Methodological problems surfaced in all of the studies and, apart from attitude to research, there was little to suggest that any potential individual determinant influences research use. Important conceptual and measurement issues with regard to research utilization could be better addressed if research in the area were undertaken longitudinally by multi-disciplinary teams of researchers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization.

              Despite three decades of empirical investigation into research utilization and a renewed emphasis on evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice in the past decade, understanding of factors influencing research uptake in nursing remains limited. There is, however, increased awareness that organizational influences are important. To develop and test a theoretical model of organizational influences that predict research utilization by nurses and to assess the influence of varying degrees of context, based on the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, on research utilization and other variables. The study sample was drawn from a census of registered nurses working in acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada, accessed through their professional licensing body (n = 6,526 nurses; 52.8% response rate). Three variables that measured PARIHS dimensions of context (culture, leadership, and evaluation) were used to sort cases into one of four mutually exclusive data sets that reflected less positive to more positive context. Then, a theoretical model of hospital- and unit-level influences on research utilization was developed and tested, using structural equation modeling, and 300 cases were randomly selected from each of the four data sets. Model test results were as follows--low context: chi2= 124.5, df = 80, p <. 001; partially low: chi2= 144.2, p <. 001, df = 80; partially high: chi2= 157.3, df = 80, p <. 001; and partially low: chi2= 146.0, df = 80, p <. 001. Hospital characteristics that positively influenced research utilization by nurses were staff development, opportunity for nurse-to-nurse collaboration, and staffing and support services. Increased emotional exhaustion led to less reported research utilization and higher rates of patient and nurse adverse events. Nurses working in contexts with more positive culture, leadership, and evaluation also reported significantly more research utilization, staff development, and lower rates of patient and staff adverse events than did nurses working in less positive contexts (i.e., those that lacked positive culture, leadership, or evaluation). The findings highlight the combined importance of culture, leadership, and evaluation to increase research utilization and improve patient safety. The findings may serve to strengthen the PARIHS framework and to suggest that, although it is not fully developed, the framework is an appropriate guide to implement research into practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central
                1748-5908
                2011
                5 January 2011
                : 6
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [3 ]Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [4 ]Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet; and Clinical Research Utilization (CRU), Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                Article
                1748-5908-6-1
                10.1186/1748-5908-6-1
                3024963
                21208425
                53b6b664-1e78-4f28-b49c-025788ff1e51
                Copyright ©2011 Squires et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 March 2010
                : 5 January 2011
                Categories
                Systematic Review

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article