Beliefs and implementation of evidence‐based practice among nurses and allied healthcare providers in the Valais hospital, Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Evidence‐based practice (EBP) is upheld as a means for patients to receive the most efficient care in a given context. Despite the available evidence and positive beliefs about it, implementing EBP as standard daily practice still faces many obstacles. Aims and objectives This study investigated the beliefs about and implementation of EBP among nurses and allied healthcare providers (AHP) in 9 acute care hospitals in the canton of Valais, Switzerland. Materials and Methods A cross‐sectional descriptive survey was conducted. The target population was composed of 1899 nurses and 126 AHPs. Beliefs about and implementation of EBP were measured using EBP‐Beliefs and EBP‐Implementation scales of Melnyk et al. Results The initial sample consisted in 491 participants (overall response rate 24.2%): 421 nurses (22.4% response rate) and 78 AHPs (61.9% response rate). The final sample, composed only of those who declared previous exposure to EBP, included 391 participants (329 nurses and 62 AHPs). Overall, participants had positive attitudes towards EBP and were willing to increase their knowledge to guide practice. However, they acknowledged poor implementation of EBP in daily practice. A significantly higher level of EBP implementation was declared by those formally trained in it ( P = 0.006) and by those occupying more senior professional functions ( P = 0.004). EBP‐Belief scores predicted 13% of the variance in the EBP‐Implementation scores ( R 2 = 0.13). Discussion EBP is poorly implemented despite positive beliefs about it. Continuing education and support on EBP would help to ensure that patients receive the best available care based on high‐quality evidence, patient needs, clinical expertise, and a fair distribution of healthcare resources. Conclusion This study's results will be used to guide institutional strategy to increase the use of EBP in daily 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.
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 | 0.076 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".