liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The concept of research utilization as understood by Swedish nurses: demarcations of instrumental, conceptual, and persuasive research utilization.
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
School of Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden and Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, ISSN 1545-102X, E-ISSN 1741-6787, Vol. 11, no 1, 55-64 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The literature implies research utilization (RU) to be a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, difficult to trace in clinical practice. A deeper understanding of the concept of RU in a nursing context is needed, in particular, for the development of instruments for measuring nurses' RU, which could facilitate the evaluation of interventions to support the implementation of evidence-based practice. In this paper, we explored nurses' demarcation of instrumental RU (IRU), conceptual RU (CRU), and persuasive RU (PRU) using an item pool proposed to measure IRU, CRU, and PRU.

METHODS: The item pool (12 items) was presented to two samples: one of practicing registered nurses (n = 890) in Sweden 4 years after graduating and one of recognized content experts (n = 7). Correlation analyses and content validity index (CVI) calculations were used together with qualitative content analysis, in a mixed methods design.

FINDINGS: According to the item and factor analyses, CRU and PRU could not be distinguished, whereas IRU could. Analyses also revealed problems in linking the CRU items to the external criteria. The CVIs, however, showed excellent or good results for the IRU, CRU, and PRU items as well as at the scale level. The qualitative data indicated that IRU was the least problematic for the experts to categorize, whereas CRU and PRU were harder to demarcate.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate a difficulty in explicitly demarcating between CRU and PRU in clinical nursing. We suggest this overlap is related to conceptual incoherence, indicating a need for further studies. The findings constitute new knowledge about the RU concepts in a clinical nursing context, and highlight differences in how the concepts can be understood by RNs in clinical practice and experts within the field. We suggest that the findings are useful for defining RU in nursing and further development of measures of RU.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2014. Vol. 11, no 1, 55-64 p.
Keyword [en]
concept demarcation, expert panel, mixed methods, nursing, research utilization, survey
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-136136DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12013PubMedID: 23879321OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-136136DiVA: diva2:1085324
Available from: 2017-03-28 Created: 2017-03-28 Last updated: 2017-04-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eldh, Ann Catrine
In the same journal
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 113 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf