Factors influencing the development of evidence‐based practice: a research tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The paper reports a study to develop and test a tool for assessing a range of factors influencing the development of evidence-based practice among clinical nurses. BACKGROUND: Achieving evidence-based practice is a goal in nursing frequently cited by the profession and in government health policy directives. Assessing factors influencing the achievement of this goal, however, is complex. Consideration needs to be given to a range of factors, including different types of evidence used to inform practice, barriers to achieving evidence-based practice, and the skills required by nurses to implement evidence-based care. METHODS: Measurement scales currently available to investigate the use of evidence in nursing practice focus on nurses' sources of knowledge and on barriers to the use of research evidence. A new, wider ranging Developing Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire was developed and tested for its measurement properties in two studies. In study 1, a sample of 598 nurses working at two hospitals in one strategic health authority in northern England was surveyed. In study 2, a slightly expanded version of the questionnaire was employed in a survey of 689 community nurses in 12 primary care organizations in two strategic health authorities, one in northern England and the other in southern England. FINDINGS: The measurement characteristics of the new questionnaire were shown to be acceptable. Ten significant, and readily interpretable, factors were seen to underlie nurses' relation to evidence-based practice. CONCLUSION: Strategies to promote evidence-based practice need to take account of the differing needs of nurses and focus on a range of sources of evidence. The Developing Evidence-Based Practice questionnaire can assist in assessing the specific 'evidencing' tendencies of any given group of nurses.
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 | 0.231 | 0.404 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".