MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identifying international barriers and facilitators to research utilization

2020· review· en· W3036950448 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)NursingPerceptionClinical PracticeNursing practiceNursing researchPsychologyMedicineMedical educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To define research utilization (RU) and identify barriers and facilitators to RU in nursing practice. METHODS: An international integrative review of 42 studies was conducted related to barriers and facilitators of RU. RESULTS: Following a review of the research that met the inclusion criteria, the author identifies common themes related to the implementation of research into clinical practice and the challenges surrounding RU. CONCLUSION: Despite consistently perceived barriers to research among nurses from different geographic, cultural, and clinical backgrounds, practice changes are typically out of their hands. Further research is necessary to gauge perception among the nursing associations, regulatory bodies, healthcare organizations, policy makers, and managers responsible for implementing these changes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.767
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it