Factors that predict evidence use by Australian perioperative nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice has been demonstrated to positively impact patient outcomes; unfortunately, there are many factors that hinder the use of research evidence by healthcare clinicians. Our previous study reported a multisite survey assessing Australian perioperative nurses knowledge, practice, attitude, and perceived barriers to evidence use. This subsequent analysis used univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare individual nurse and organisational characteristics with high evidence-based practice (EBP) use. Two individual nurse characteristics found to be related to EBP were postgraduate qualifications (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07–2.6, p=0.02) and previous research experience (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6–2.4, p=0.01). Organisational characteristics related to EBP included access to the internet (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.3–3.0, p=0.001) and access to ongoing EBP education (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.5, p=0.01). Previous research experience (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0–2.3, p=0.01) was the only independent predictor of EBP. Given our finding, we suggest that considerably greater effort be made to facilitate nurses involvement in research studies in the perioperative setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".