Nurses' Use of Research in Practice at Three US Army Hospitals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Translation of research into clinical nursing practice has been extensively studied with nurses in civilian institutions. However, limited examination has been made of research utilization in US military facilities. A quantitative survey approach, using Estabrooks's adapted Research Utilization Survey and Mylle's Organizational Climate Survey, was employed to determine the extent that registered nurses in selected US Army Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) use research findings for their own practice and to describe the factors, both professional and organizational, that enhance or hinder research utilization. This study found that nurses at the MTFs reported using research in their practice less than half the time. Variables most significantly correlated with research utilization were belief suspension and attitudes toward research. The variable of support correlated significantly with all types of research utilization except indirect. Other organizational factors influencing nurses' use of research findings in practice were time, accessibility to research and a champion to assist their efforts. Interestingly, the number of years worked in nursing and in the facilities correlated inversely with research utilization, suggesting that over time, nurses may begin to rely on past experience rather than seek out new knowledge for practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it