The relationship between busyness and research utilization: it is about time
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
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the concept of busyness in nursing and to understand the relationship between busyness and nurses' research utilization better. BACKGROUND: Lack of time and busyness are consistently reported as barriers to research utilization. Current literature fails to identify the dimensions of busyness and offers little insight into the relationship between busyness and nurses' research utilization. DESIGN/METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative data and created a conceptual map of busyness in nursing. RESULTS: Our results suggested that busyness consists of physical and psychological dimensions. Interpersonal and environmental factors influenced both dimensions. Cultural and intrapersonal factors contributed to psychological elements. The effects of busyness reported included missed opportunities, compromised safety, emotional and physical strain, sacrifice of personal time, incomplete nursing care and the inability to find or use resources. CONCLUSIONS: Our beginning description of busyness contributes to a greater understanding of the relationship between busyness and research utilization. Our findings suggest that lack of time as a barrier to research utilization is more complex than depicted in the literature. Instead, the mental time and energy required to navigate complex environments and a culture of busyness more accurately reflect what may be meant by 'lack of time' as a barrier to research utilization. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Future interventions aimed at increasing research utilization may be more effective if they focus on factors that contribute to a culture of busyness in nursing and address the mental time and energy required for nurses to use research in 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 | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it