Barriers to and facilitators of research utilization in practice as seen by a group of perioperative nurses in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative descriptive study was conducted at a public regional hospital located in the south-east region of the province of New Brunswick, Canada. The purpose of this study was to identify if the barriers to and facilitators of research utilization in a group of perioperative nurses are similar to other research areas utilizing the same scale.<br>The data collection process was done over a two (2) month period utilizing the Barriers and Facilitators to Using Research in Practice questionnaire (BARRIERS Scale) developed by Funk et al. (1991). The fmal sample size consisted of 46 nurses (61% response rate) who completed the survey.<br>The results show that the top barrier was 'The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures' followed by 'physicians will not cooperate with implementation'. Seven out of the top ten barriers were related to the `setting'. The facilitating factors most frequently suggested by the nurses were related to the setting (organization) as well as the models of education to increase their knowledge of research methods and to develop skills in evaluating research findings. These results are congruent with previous findings regarding the barriers to research utilization. The implication of these and other findings are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".