Facilitation as a Role and Process in Achieving Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing: A Focused Review of Concept and Meaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.064 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".