The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) to improve client and system outcomes. Despite an improved awareness about EIDM, there is a lack of use of research evidence and understanding about the effectiveness of interventions to promote EIDM. This project aimed to discover if knowledge translation (KT) interventions directed to nurses in tertiary care are effective for improving EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and, as a result, client outcomes. It also sought to understand contextual factors that affect the impact of such interventions. METHODS: A systematic review funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PROSPERO registration: CRD42013003319) was conducted. Included studies examined the implementation of any KT intervention involving nurses in tertiary care to promote EIDM knowledge, skills, behaviours, and client outcomes or studies that examined contextual factors. Study designs included systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. The search included electronic databases and manual searching of published and unpublished literature to November 2012; key databases included MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica (EMBASE). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Studies with quantitative data determined to be clinically homogeneous were synthesized using meta-analytic methods. Studies with quantitative data not appropriate for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively by outcome. Studies with qualitative data were synthesized by theme. RESULTS: Of the 44,648 citations screened, 30 citations met the inclusion criteria (18 quantitative, 10 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods studies). The quality of studies with quantitative data ranged from very low to high, and quality criteria was generally met for studies with qualitative data. No studies evaluated the impact on knowledge and skills; they primarily investigated the effectiveness of multifaceted KT strategies for promoting EIDM behaviours and improving client outcomes. Almost all studies included an educational component. A meta-analysis of two studies determined that a multifaceted intervention (educational meetings and use of a mentor) did not increase engagement in a range of EIDM behaviours [mean difference 2.7, 95 % CI (-1.7 to 7.1), I (2) = 0 %]. Among the remaining studies, no definitive conclusions could be made about the relative effectiveness of the KT interventions due to variation of interventions and outcomes, as well as study limitations. Findings from studies with qualitative data identified the organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors, as well as characteristics of the innovation, that influence the success of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: KT interventions are being implemented and evaluated on nurses' behaviour and client outcomes. This systematic review may inform the selection of KT interventions and outcomes among nurses in tertiary care and decisions about further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| grok | Meta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".