New Brunswick nurses' views on nursing research, and factors influencing their research activities in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Brunswick became the first province in Canada to require a baccalaureate degree in nursing as the entry to practice, yet nursing research in hospital settings remains quite low. This study examined clinical nurses' views on nursing research, and identified some contributing factors to the research-practice gap. This descriptive, cross-sectional multicenter study involved 1081 nurses working in the Francophone Regional Health Authority in New Brunswick, Canada. Nurses were eager to identify nursing-care problems to improve patient care (92.9%), and to be involved in collecting data for nursing research studies (95.2%). However, without research supervision, few had engaged in basic research activities, such as formulating or refining research questions (24.5%), presenting at research conferences (6.9%), or changing their practice based on research findings (27.2%). Younger, more educated nurses, nurse managers, and educators participated more readily in research. Sharing research and clinical expertise, as well as infrastructures between academic and clinical institutions is the key to enduring successful patient-centered nursing research in clinical settings. Concrete actions are proposed to build clinical nursing research.
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 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 | 0.048 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads 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".