| 1. |
- Estabrooks, Carole A, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards better measures of research utilization : a collaborative study in Canada and Sweden
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Advanced Nursing. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 0309-2402 .- 1365-2648. ; 67:8, s. 1705-18
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: This paper is a report of a study examining research utilization in nursing. The specific aims were to (1) clarify the construct of research utilization, and (2) identify observable indicators of research utilization.BACKGROUND: Robust measures of research utilization do not exist despite steadily increasing numbers of studies in the field. One reason for this is theoretical confusion surrounding the central concepts in the field.METHOD: A qualitative (focus group) design was used to explore the construct of research utilization in two countries: Canada and Sweden. A systematic and sequential (three phases) approach to expert sampling framed the study. Phase 1 consisted of initial construct clarification by the research team (2005). In Phase 2, a face-to-face meeting with a panel of international research utilization nursing experts was held (2005). Phase 3 consisted of a series of focus groups with nursing care (direct and non-direct) providers (2005-2007). Data were analysed using content analysis.FINDINGS: The nursing care providers did not commonly use the term 'research utilization'. Several examples of research utilization were provided; a majority of these examples related to instrumental research utilization and became increasingly concrete as one moved from non-direct to direct care participants. Participants identified several indicators of research utilization (instrumental and conceptual). From these indicators, a measurement schematic was derived.CONCLUSIONS: The construct of research utilization is multi-faceted. Several indicators of research utilization were identified, which can be used to augment existing or develop a new and improved measure that taps both instrumental and conceptual use.
|
|
| 2. |
- Squires, Janet E, et al.
(författare)
-
A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central. - 1748-5908. ; 6:83
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.RESULTS: Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's r coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) Standards validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (i.e., the Standards) in future research utilization measurement studies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Squires, Janet E, et al.
(författare)
-
Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses : a systematic review update
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Implementation Science. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1748-5908. ; 6:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
