MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Facilitation as a Role and Process in Achieving Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing: A Focused Review of Concept and Meaning

2010· review· en· W2092971155 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitationMeaning (existential)Process (computing)PsychologyNursing practiceProcess managementEpistemologyNursingSociologyPsychotherapistMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringPhilosophyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is proposed as an important strategy to assist practitioners to implement evidence into practice. However, from a front-line nursing perspective, what is actually involved in facilitation, particularly in regards to research utilization, is poorly understood. AIM: To examine the current state of knowledge surrounding the concept of facilitation as a role and process in the implementation of research findings within the nursing context. Building on a previous concept analysis, we examined how facilitation has evolved over the last decade, particularly focusing on the practical elements (e.g., what it entails to operationalize and implement facilitation in nursing). METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases identified theory and research-based nursing papers explicitly focused on facilitation in research utilization. Through a content analysis, we examined how the concept is being used, described, and applied within nursing. RESULTS: Facilitation continues to be described as supporting and enabling practitioners to improve practice through evidence implementation. Certain aspects of the role and the strategies being employed to promote change are more evident. It was possible to formulate these into a taxonomy. Key findings include: * facilitation is now being viewed as an individual role as well as a process involving individuals and groups; * project management/leadership are important components; * no matter which approach is selected, tailoring facilitation to the local context is critical; * there is a growing emphasis on evaluation, particularly linking outcomes to nursing actions. CONCLUSIONS: Further understanding of what facilitators are actually doing to enable changes in nursing practice based on research findings will provide the groundwork for the design and evaluation of practical strategies for evidence-based practice in nursing. Research is needed to clarify how facilitation may be used to implement change in nursing practice along with evaluation of the effectiveness of various approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it