Utilization of Research in Clinical Nursing and Midwifery Practice in Ghana: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Council of Nurses' 2021 code of ethics mandates nurses to provide evidence-informed care to patients. Globally, using research evidence has led to improvement in nursing and midwifery practice, according to the World Health Organization. A study in Ghana found that 25.3% (n=40) of nurses and midwives use research in clinical care. Research utilization (RU) increases therapeutic effectiveness, improves health outcomes, and enhances the personal and professional development of clinicians. However, it is uncertain the extent to which nurses and midwives are prepared, skilled, and supported to utilize research in clinical care in Ghana. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a conceptual framework that can facilitate RU among clinical nurses and midwives in Ghanaian health facilities. METHODS: This will be a cross-sectional study with a concurrent mixed methods approach. It will be conducted in 6 hospitals and 4 nursing educational institutions in Kumasi, Ghana. The study has 4 objectives which will be executed in 3 phases. Phase 1 follows a quantitative approach to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clinical nurses and midwives on the use of research in their practice. Using a web-based survey, 400 nurses and midwives working in 6 health facilities will be recruited. Data analysis will be conducted using SPSS, with statistical significance set at .05. Qualitative methodology, using focus group discussions with clinical nurses and midwives, will be conducted to identify the factors influencing their RU. In phase 2, focus group discussions will be used to examine and describe how nurse educators in 4 nursing and midwifery educational institutions prepare nurses and midwives for RU during their education. Views of nurse managers on the RU in Ghanaian health care facilities will be explored in the second section of this phase through one-on-one interviews. Inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyze the qualitative data, and Lincoln and Guba's principles of trustworthiness will be applied. In phase 3, the stages of model development proposed by Chinn and Kramer; and Walker and Avant will be used to triangulate findings from all objectives and formulate a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Data collection started in December 2022. Publication of the results will begin in April 2023. CONCLUSIONS: RU in clinical practice has become an acceptable practice in nursing and midwifery. It is critical that nursing and midwifery professionals in sub-Saharan Africa shift their practice to embrace the global movement. This proposed conceptual framework will empower nurses and midwives to improve their practice of RU. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45067.
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 | 0.101 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.011 |
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".