Communication of Research and Practice Knowledge in Nursing Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research did not indicate whether communication occurred between the research and practice components of nursing knowledge. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to examine the extent of communication between or within the nursing-research and nursing-practice components of the nursing literature. METHODS: Specific citing/cited relationships from the Current Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) are analyzed using citation analysis. The sample was taken from the population of indexed documents that contained references, that had the subject code of nursing, and that were originally published in the United States or Canada in 1989. RESULTS: The results show that authors of research articles tend to cite research articles more often than practice articles, and that authors of practice articles tend to cite practice articles more often than research articles. Authors with research degrees publish research articles more often than would be expected by chance, and authors with clinical and undergraduate degrees publish practice articles more often than expected. Authors associated with research institutions tend to publish research articles, and those affiliated with service institutions tend to publish practice articles. Most cited documents (69.4%) are from disciplines other than nursing. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of communication between the research and the practice component of nursing knowledge was demonstrated and appears to be more prevalent than previously indicated. Further research on how the cited literature is used would enable us to know about the depth and quality of the communication event and to note variations as the body of nursing knowledge evolves.
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 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 | 0.071 | 0.383 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".