MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transformative Learning and Research Utilization in Nursing Practice: A Missing Link?

2009· article· en· W1981415686 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Matthew‐Maich, Jenny Ploeg, Susan M. Jack, Maureen Dobbins

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMohawk College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningLink (geometry)PsychologyNursingSociologyPedagogyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poor or inconsistent research utilization into clinical practice is a recurrent theme across study contexts, rendering leaders disillusioned with how best to foster the uptake of research into nursing practice. This makes it imperative to look to new approaches. Research utilization involves a learning process engaging attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; yet, this is often overlooked in approaches and models used to facilitate research use. This oversight may offer some explanation to the limited progress in research utilization to date. Transformation Theory offers an explanatory theory and specific strategies (critical reflection and critical discourse) to explore attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors so that they are understood, validated, and can better guide actions. AIM: The purpose of this article was to explore what Transformation Theory can contribute to research utilization initiatives in nursing practice. APPROACH: Transformation Theory and transformative learning strategies are discussed and critically analyzed in consideration of their potential roles in fostering research utilization in clinical nursing practice. ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS: (1) Research utilization is a learning process that involves knowledge, skills, feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. (2) Transformative learning strategies of critical reflection and discourse can facilitate insight into experiences, finding shared meanings among groups of people, and understanding/validating beliefs, attitudes, and feelings so they can more consciously guide future actions. This dimension is frequently neglected in research utilization efforts. (3) In combination with research utilization theories, Transformation Theory may be a missing link to make research utilization initiatives more effective in rendering and sustaining nursing practice change, thus enhancing client care and well-being. (4) Research and further consideration are both warranted and needed.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.068
Scholarly communication0.0220.026
Open science0.0030.021
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.406
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207