Academic and Clinical Nurses’ Perceptions and Experiences on Academic-Practice Partnership in Evidence-Based Practice: An Interpretive Description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To explore academic and clinical nurses’ perceptions and experiences on academic-practice partnership in evidence-based practice. Background. Academic-practice partnership could promote evidence-based practice which is crucial for high-quality care. Academic and clinical nurses are the foundation of the partnerships; however, there is little knowledge of their perceptions and experiences on academic-practice partnership in evidence-based practice. Methods. This is an interpretive description study. Twenty-two eligible participants were interviewed through face-to-face or online videoconferencing meetings. Guiding questions for the interviews focused on the perceptions and experiences of academic-practice partnership in the context of evidence-based practice. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and checked verbatim. We used constant comparative analysis to analyze the qualitative data. Results. Four themes with fifteen subthemes were generated: necessities, modes, challenges, and benefits of the academic-practice partnership in evidence-based practice. Participants believed that academic-practice partnership was a necessary strategy to promote evidence-based practice and could be built through different modes. Nevertheless, most academic-practice partnerships were superficial because of specific types of challenges. However, a good academic-practice partnership could create a win-win situation for both nursing academia and clinical practice. Conclusion. Academic-practice partnership is a win-win strategy for both the academic side and clinical side to promote evidence-based practice. Different modes of academic-practice partnership provide academic and clinical nurses with more opportunities to promote evidence-based practice with a higher likelihood of successful implementation. However, related challenges require multilevel measures to provide better environments to initiate, build, and maintain intensive collaborations between academic and clinical nurses. Implications for Nursing Management. Academic and clinical organizations, leaders, and individuals should take multilevel measures to initiate, build, and maintain a close academic-practice partnership to promote evidence-based practice, which is crucial for high-quality nursing care, patient safety, and nursing discipline development.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".