MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405475193 · doi:10.33607/rmske.v2i31.1541

Determinants of Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Decision-Making among Nurses in Primary Health Care Facilities

2024· article· en· W4405475193 on OpenAlexaff
Opeoluwa Oluwatoyin Olabode, Funmilayo A. Okanlawon, Emmanuel O. Adesuyi, Oluwadamilare Akingbade, Chinomso Ugochukwu Nwozichi, Yetunde Oluwafunmilayo Tola

Bibliographic record

VenueReabilitacijos mokslai slauga kineziterapija ergoterapija · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical decision makingPrimary careNursingPrimary health careHealth carePsychologyMedicineFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Healthcare workers and institutions often face a lack of evidence-based and cost-effective care, which, if addressed, could improve practice and outcomes. Aim. To assess the determinants of implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) in clinical decision-making (CDM) among nurses in primary health care facilities. Methods. The study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design involving 266 nurses from primary healthcare facilities in Ondo State. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered via the online survey platform Google Forms. Findings are presented in frequency and percentage tables, and inferential statistics were analyzed using Chi-square tests at a 5% level of statistical significance. Results. Knowledge has been identified as a key determinant in the implementation of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in Chronic Disease Management (CDM) among nurses in primary healthcare facilities. The study revealed that 73.7% of respondents demonstrated a strong knowledge of EBP in CDM, with the highest levels reported among ward managers. Additionally, access to EBP resources and consistent support from employers were major factors influencing successful EBP implementation, with 86% of respondents affirming the importance of these supports. Regarding implementation levels, 53.4% of respondents reported high implementation of EBP in CDM, while the remaining 46.6% indicated low implementation. Conclusions. The study concluded that while nurses generally possessed good knowledge of Evidence-Based Practice, the highest levels of expertise were observed among ward managers. Key barriers to Evidence-Based Practice implementation in Chronic Disease Management were also identified, including limited network accessibility and inconsistent electricity supply. Keywords: determinants; implementation; evidence-based practice; clinical decision-making; nurses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.444 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReabilitacijos mokslai slauga kineziterapija ergoterapijaSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207