Practice‐based nursing research: Evaluation of clinical and professional impacts from a research training programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical and professional impacts of nurses' and other clinicians' involvement in a research training programme. BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) can be supported by nurses' involvement in research. Registered nurses report common barriers to EBP and research, but training programmes have been shown to overcome some of those barriers and lead to successful research engagement and EBP enhancement. DESIGN: This mixed-methods evaluation study used a survey and interviews to explore the clinical and professional impacts of research training programme participation on nurses' and other clinicians' clinical practice, appreciation for EBP, interest in advanced education, future research involvement and dissemination activities. METHODS: The study adhered to the SQUIRE guidelines for quality improvement studies as part of the EQUATOR network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research). Survey invitations were sent to 126 clinicians who had participated in a research training programme. All were invited to complete the questionnaire and participate in an interview. RESULTS: Survey results and interview responses showed a positive impact. Participants reported examples of sustained practice changes, enhanced EBP, heightened interest in graduate studies, strong interest in future research engagement and a large number of dissemination activities, including publications and conference presentations. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation found that participation in a research training programme can have a positive clinical and professional impact on participants, including enhancing their appreciation for EBP and research, their interest in advanced education and meaningful dissemination of findings to improve patient care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: As healthcare leaders seek to increase EBP to improve patient care, successful models for nurses' engagement in research and EBP are critically important. This research training programme is one promising model for supporting nurses' and other clinicians' engagement in EBP and 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 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 | 0.199 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".