An Organizational Intervention to Influence Evidence-Informed Decision Making in Home Health Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to field test and evaluate a series of organizational strategies to promote evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) by nurse managers and clinical leaders in home healthcare. BACKGROUND: EIDM is central to delivering high-quality and effective healthcare. Barriers exist and organizational strategies are needed to support EIDM. METHODS: Management and clinical leaders from 4 units participated in a 20-week organization-focused intervention. Preintervention (n = 32) and postintervention (n = 17) surveys and semistructured interviews (n = 15) were completed. RESULTS: Statistically significant increases were found on 4 of 31 survey items reflecting an increased organizational capacity for participants to acquire and apply research evidence in decision making. Support from designated facilitators with advanced skills in finding, appraising, and applying research was the highest rated intervention strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Results are useful to inform the development of organizational infrastructures to increase EIDM capacity in community-based healthcare organizations.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".