Evidence-Based Nursing Practice in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nursing profession in the 21st century requires service delivery in a highly specialized nursing environment with a high degree of professionalism and optimum patient outcome. Evidence-Based Nursing Practice (EBP) may provide a great opportunity for moving nursing care to a level that may involve clinical reasoning to meet demand in the 21st century and beyond, improve patient outcome and cost containment. Objective: To investigate evidence-based nursing practice among nurses in Ghana. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional survey and data was collected among clinical nurses and nurse educators from both private and public institutions across Ghana. Nurses were included if they have full-time or part-time appointment; were in active service and have a valid Personal Identification Number (PIN) from the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Ghana. Results: About half of the nurses disagreed or were neutral regarding formulation of answerable research questions and 40% do not critically track relevant scientific evidence. Also, more than 30% of the nurses disagreed or were neutral regarding the integration of scientific evidence into practice. Clinical nurses were about 2.1 times more likely to have difficulty determining the applicability of research findings in service delivery compared to nurse educators. Conclusion: The findings suggest EBP uptake and integration is suboptimal in Ghana.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".