The Effect of Staff Nurse Participation in a Clinical Nursing Research Project on Attitude Towards, Access to, Support of and Use of Research in the Acute Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of participation in research on staff nurses' attitude towards, access to, perceived support of and reported use of research in practice. Six medical surgical units in a southeastern Ontario teaching hospital were randomly assigned to receive 3 different levels of exposure to research: high, low and usual. On the high participation units, a clinical research group consisting of the investigator and interested nurses (n = 18) critiqued research literature related to an important clinical issue (i.e., patterns of sleep) and designed and implemented a clinical research study. On the low participation units, a similar clinical research group (n = 10) met once and were involved, solely, in the design and implementation of the clinical research protocol. On the control units, there were no formalized research groups or activities. All registered nurses (n = 235), including the research group participants, on the 6 units were surveyed with a research utilization questionnaire (RUQ) pre and post participant intervention. The RUQ scores were higher on the high participation units at baseline and post intervention in comparison to the low and control units. Nurses who participated directly in the clinical research groups (high and low) reported similar RUQ scores post intervention and higher scores in comparison to all nurses. All RUQ scores were higher post intervention. Nurses with clinical expertise but minimal research expertise participated meaningfully in clinical research. While participation had an individual effect there was no unit effect, suggesting other factors, such as organizational support and culture, are important determinants of research use.
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 | 0.043 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".