Clinical Nurse Specialists' Use of Evidence in Practice: A Pilot Study
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
BACKGROUND: The interest in finding ways to bridge the gap between nursing research and implementation of findings into practice has been increasing. Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) may be a bridge between frontline nurses and current developments in practice. While several researchers have studied the use of evidence by nurses in general, no known studies have been focused specifically on the use of evidence by CNSs. PURPOSE: The purpose of this pilot study was to develop an understanding of the sources, nature, and application of evidence used by CNSs in practice and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a qualitative study focused on the CNS role in relation to evidence use in practice. METHODS: This pilot study is a descriptive exploratory design in the qualitative paradigm. Seven CNSs from a large Western Canadian health region were interviewed. Interview transcripts were reviewed for recurrent themes about sources of evidence, evidence use, and barriers and facilitators to evidence use. FINDINGS: CNSs access and use evidence from a variety of sources. All CNSs indicated that research literature was a primary source of evidence and research was used in decision-making. Peers and experience were also important sources of evidence. CNSs used the Internet extensively to consult research databases, online sources of evidence, and to contact peers about current practice. CNSs also gathered evidence from frontline nurses, healthcare team members, and families before decision-making. The choice of evidence often depended upon the type of question they were attempting to answer. Barriers cited by CNSs support previous research and included lack of time, resources, and receptivity at clinical and organizational levels. Facilitators included peers, organizational support, and advanced education. DISCUSSION: CNSs in Canada have advanced education and clinical expertise and many are employed in roles that permeate organizational management and clinical nursing care. It is suggested that qualitative research in naturalized settings that investigates the role of CNSs in relation to the dissemination of evidence in nursing practice needs attention.
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 | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it