Hospital nurses’ information retrieval behaviours in relation to evidence based nursing: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of the information retrieval behaviour of clinical nurses, in terms of the use of databases and other information resources and their frequency of use. METHODS: Systematic searches carried out in five databases and handsearching were used to identify the studies from 2010 to 2016, with a populations, exposures and outcomes (PEO) search strategy, focusing on the question: In which databases or other information resources do hospital nurses search for evidence based information, and how often? RESULTS: Of 5272 titles retrieved based on the search strategy, only nine studies fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. The studies are from the United States, Canada, Taiwan and Nigeria. The results show that hospital nurses' primary choice of source for evidence based information is Google and peers, while bibliographic databases such as PubMed are secondary choices. Data on frequency are only included in four of the studies, and data are heterogenous. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for choosing Google and peers are primarily lack of time; lack of information; lack of retrieval skills; or lack of training in database searching. Only a few studies are published on clinical nurses' retrieval behaviours, and more studies are needed from Europe and Australia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".