Exploring the role of organizational policies and procedures in promoting research utilization in registered nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Policies and procedures (P&Ps) have been suggested as one possible strategy for moving research evidence into practice among nursing staff in hospitals. Research in the area of P&Ps is limited, however. This paper explores: 1) nurses' use of eight specific research-based practices (RBPs) and RBP overall, 2) nurses' use and understanding of P&Ps, and 3) the role of P&Ps in promoting research utilization. METHODS: Staff nurses from the eight health regions governing acute care services across the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding their use of eight RBPs and associated P&Ps. Data were also obtained from authorities in six of the eight regions about existing relevant P&Ps. We used descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis to assess the relationship between key independent variables and self-reported use of RBP. RESULTS: Use of the eight RBPs ranged from 7.8% to 88.6%, depending on the practice. Nurses ranked P&P manuals as their number one source of practice knowledge. Most respondents (84.8%) reported that the main reason they consult the P&P manual is to confirm they are practicing according to agency rules. Multivariate regression analysis identified three significant predictors of being a user versus non-user of RBP overall: awareness, awareness by regular use, and persuasion. Six significant predictors of being a consistent versus less consistent user of RBP overall were also identified: perception of P&P existence, unit, nursing experience, personal experience as a source of practice knowledge, number of existing research-based P&Ps, and lack of time as a barrier to consulting P&P manuals. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that nurses use P&Ps to guide their practice. However, the mere existence of P&Ps is not sufficient to translate research into nursing practice. Individual and organizational factors related to nurses' understanding and use of P&Ps also play key roles. Thus, moving research evidence into practice will require careful interplay between the organization and the individual. P&Ps may be the interface through which this occurs.
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 | 0.039 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".