MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389689936 · doi:10.2196/50703

Exploring Nursing Research Culture in Clinical Practice: Qualitative Ethnographic Study

2023· article· en· W4389689936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hyeyoung Hwang, Jennie C. De Gagné, Leeho Yoo, Miji Lee, Hyekyung Jo, Ju-Eun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintEthnographyNursing researchSociologyPsychologyNursingMedicineAnthropologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cultivating a positive research culture is considered the key to facilitating the utilization of research findings. In the realm of clinical nursing research, nurses conducting research may find the utilization of findings challenging due to the lack of a positive research culture. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and describe the sociocultural context of nursing research in a clinical setting at a Korean tertiary hospital. METHODS: We included participant observation and ethnographic interviews with 6 registered nurses working in a medical-surgical unit in a Korean tertiary hospital who had experience conducting nursing research in clinical settings in this qualitative ethnographic study. The study was conducted from April 2022 to May 2022. Data analysis was conducted using Spradley's ethnographic approach, which includes domain analysis, taxonomic analysis, componential analysis, and theme analysis, and occurred concurrently with data collection. RESULTS: The overarching theme identified for nursing research culture in clinical practice was the development of a driving force for growth within the clinical environment. This theme encompasses (1) balancing positive and negative influences in the research process, (2) fostering transformational change for both nurses and patients, and (3) promoting complementary communication among nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research plays a vital role in nursing practice that requires a balance of supportive elements, such as patient-driven research questions and hospital research support, with practical challenges such as shift work and high work intensity. This study found that a positive clinical nursing research culture can serve as a unifying bridge, connecting researchers, patients, who serve as both the origin and ultimate beneficiaries of research, and hospitals that facilitate research endeavors. Future research should explore whether the themes derived from this study fully reflect a clinical nursing research culture comprising patients, nurses, and the hospital environment and determine what requirements are needed to establish such a nursing research culture.

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 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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.717
GPT teacher head0.704
Teacher spread0.012 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian/Pacific Island Nursing JournalSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207