Research utilization and clinical nurse educators: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical nurse educators and other linking agents such as clinical nurse specialists, advanced nurse practitioners, and nurses working in research leadership positions are an important link in the facilitation of evidence-based practice in health care organizations. AIM: The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a systematic review of the literature regarding clinical nurse educators and research utilization, using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework as a backdrop for the analysis. FINDINGS: There is a positive relationship between research utilization and attitude toward research, higher levels of education, and reading professional nursing journals among clinical nurse educators. The authors suggest that not all clinical nurse educators have the necessary critical appraisal skills and research knowledge to use research effectively in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have examined clinical nurse educators and the determinants of their research utilization behaviour in clinical practice. Future research on clinical nurse educators needs to focus on the outcomes of research utilization, including the effectiveness of their role as facilitators and the contexts in which they practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.441 | 0.561 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it