An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice

Background. The challenges of implementing evidence‐based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry. Aims and objectives. The aim of the study was to address the following questions:
? What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice?
? What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice?
? Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice? Design and methods. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on‐going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi‐structured interviews were conducted (n = 17). Results. A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi‐professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources. Conclusions. The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on‐going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence‐based practice, such as skilling‐up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves. Relevance to clinical practice. Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects.     

我国护理领域证据临床转化研究的范围综述

目的:探讨我国护理领域内证据临床转化研究的现状、所依据的证据质量、研究方法及研究内容。方法:使用"证据转化""证据应用"等检索词在中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库中进行检索,应用Arksey和O’Malley的范围综述方法对文献进行分析。结果:共纳入152篇文献,95.4%的文献发表于2015年之后,92.1%的文献发表在护理类期刊上,27.0%的文献提供了系统的检索策略,43.3%的文献进行了方法学质量评价,74.3%的文献均没有对证据的可用性进行评价。证据转化以症状护理为主题的文献最多,占39.5%,87.5%的文献采用了前后对照方法来评价证据转化的效果,所有的研究均构建了综合性、多元化的证据转化策略,包括基于证据(42.1%)和基于障碍因素的干预策略(57.9%)。73.7%的文献采用了多元化指标对效果进行评价,仅有7.2%的文献提出了应维持证据在临床的持续应用。结论:我国护理领域内证据临床转化研究数量上呈现明显的增加趋势,但转化所依据的证据质量及研究方法尚需要加强,应采取策略推动证据在实践的持续应用。     

Nursing based evidence: moving beyond evidence-based practice in mental health nursing

Various authors suggest mental health nursing is dominated by knowledge borrowed from psychiatry, pharmacology and the behavioural sciences. These disciplines favour knowledge developed using quantitative methodologies so they and evidence-based practice (EBP) and evidence-based nursing (EBN), increasingly called for in mental health nursing, fit seamlessly together. Nevertheless, as these movements dismiss qualitative approaches to knowledge (evidence) development, I argue against the move toward EBP/EBN in mental health nursing. This is because the specialty's primary interests - human experiences of illness/health care and human relationships, often do not lend themselves to being quantitatively researched. Using nursing examples, I demonstrate how qualitative research, wholly unacceptable in relation to EBP/EBN quality of evidence scales, is indispensable to mental health nursing. The need for evidence arising from qualitative research in no way precludes the need for quantitatively derived evidence. Indeed, the specialty's twofold interest - the work of nurses with clients and the explication of phenomena which inform practice, require diverse knowledge and thus, diverse research approaches. This twofold interest defines the area of mental health nursing practice, and knowledge informing it is referred to as nursing based evidence (NBE). Because it values multiple approaches to knowledge development, NBE provides a way to articulate the specialty's distinct contribution to the health care of people experiencing mental illness and advances mental health nursing.     

Conceptions of evidence, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based practice and their use in nursing: independent nurse prescribers' views

Aim. The purpose of this study was to explore nurses’ conceptions of evidence and evidence‐based practice, whether there are differences between evidence‐based practice and evidence‐based medicine and to identify the uptake of research evidence in the workplace. Background. The use and comprehension of the term ‘evidence‐based practice’ in relation to nursing shows remarkable variation. Numerous definitions are provided, some tend to be closely related to the concept ‘evidence‐based medicine’. Independent nurse prescribers need to be able to understand the concept of evidence‐based practice to utilize and apply this concept in order to provide adequate medication management of their patients. Method. Data were generated by focus group interview and open question questionnaire and analysed by analytical abstraction. Results. Nurses offered a variety of views on the use and uptake of evidence in the workplace. Some nurses acknowledged that they did not read research papers but were aware that they used a lot of evidence in their practice. Nurses had difficulty differentiating evidence‐based practice from evidence‐based medicine. Conclusions. Nurses were familiar with the research process but not the canons of evidenced‐based practice. The data generated indicate different levels of evidence are used by nurses. This may be a reflection of the level of intrigue of the nurses involved. Relevance to clinical practice. The education and training of independent nurse prescribers should include the exploration of evidence from randomized controlled trials and from naturalistic studies and their contribution to evidenced‐based practice and evidence‐based medicine. Both concepts need to be explored in relation to the medication management of patients.