Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have investigated barriers to research utilization among nurses in various countries, and standardized scales have been validated to study this. Reported barriers have been categorized as individual, organizational and environmental, with organizational characteristics generally accounting for more variance. However, information about research utilization among paediatric nurses is lacking. AIM: The objective of the research reported here was to investigate barriers to research utilization and relationships between those barriers and participation in research, self-reported research utilization and education among paediatric nurses. DESIGN: A survey of all nurses in a paediatric teaching hospital; 176 nurses (33.3%) responded. Two standardized measures were used, the Barriers Scale and the Edmonton Research Orientation Scale. RESULTS: Lack of time to read research was the most frequently cited barrier to using research and administrators not allowing implementation was the least frequently cited. Characteristics of the communication and of the setting were more likely to be cited as barriers to research use than were characteristics of the nurse. Nurses who reported higher levels of actual research use were slightly less likely to see characteristics within themselves as barriers. Those who had taken a course about reading or using research were more likely to see the organization as a barrier. Barriers to research use were not associated with self-reported understanding of research. CONCLUSIONS: These results are congruent with previous findings that implementing research in practice is a complex process. They indicate that individual nurses' knowledge about research may not be as important as the process by which organizations implement research. However, the Barriers Scale measures general perceptions about barriers to research utilization and not nurses' specific experiences with barriers to implementing particular research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".