Use of Research by Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research utilization (RU) is crucial to preparing the next generation of registered nurses, since they are expected to stay abreast of research, read and use existing research to improve their ability to solve problems, and make decisions independently in clinical settings. Also, baccalaureate nursing programs often identify RU as an expected curricular outcome. The purpose of this study was to identify nursing students’ perceptions about RU. In this study, we used a sequential mixed methods approach. In this paper, only qualitative analysis related to RU is reported. A qualitative descriptive design was used to address the study questions. A purposive sample of 20 undergraduate students enrolled in their final year of study in BScN programs (four-year basic, honors, and accelerated programs) was recruited via e-mail to participate in the study. The study findings were categorized into the components of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, which is comprised of evidence, context, and facilitation. Findings disclosed some key themes that nursing students perceive as facilitating or restricting their use of research. These themes include level of education preparedness, clinical experience and expertise, lack of time, theory practice gap, and clinical evaluation criteria, nursing faculty support for using research, and faculty’s’ competency in research. The majority of students stated that they did not utilize the research findings in clinical practice. Insufficient knowledge about RU was the most prominent reason. These results suggest that students should be encouraged and supported to utilize research findings in their practice settings.
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 | 0.059 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".