Factors Associated with Evidence-Based Practice Competencies among Taiwanese Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an essential component of healthcare practice that ensures the delivery of high-quality care by integrating the best available evidence. This study aimed to explore factors influencing EBP among nursing professionals in Taiwan. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted with 752 registered nurses and nurse practitioners recruited from a regional teaching hospital in southern Taiwan. EBP competency was evaluated using the Taipei Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (TEBPQ). The results showed that participation in evidence-based courses or training within the past year had the strongest association with EBP competencies (Std. B = 0.157, p < 0.001). Holding a graduate degree (Std. B = 0.151, p < 0.001), working in gynecology or pediatrics (Std. B = 0.126, p < 0.001), searching the literature in electronic databases (Std. B = 0.072, p = 0.039), and able to read academic articles in English (Std. B = 0.088, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with higher TEBPQ scores. Younger age (Std. B = −0.105, p = 0.005) and male gender (Std. B = 0.089, p = 0.010) were also identified as factors contributing to higher EBP competencies. The study highlights the importance of ongoing professional development, including EBP training and language proficiency, in enhancing EBP competencies among nursing professionals in Taiwan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".