Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25717456›Full record

ReviewJournal of caring sciences2014

Barriers to and Facilitators of Research Utilization among Iranian Nurses: a Literature Review.

Abbas Heydari, Amir Emami Zeydi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of caring sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abbas HeydariEvidence- Based Caring Research Center, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Amir Emami ZeydiStudent Research Committee, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch utilization (RU), is an important strategy to promote the quality of patient care. The aim of this study was to present a comprehensive literature review describing barriers and facilitators of RU among Iranian nurses.

methodsLiterature review was undertaken using the international databases including Pub Med/Medline, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Also, Persian electronic databases such as Magiran, SID and Iran Medex were searched up to May 2014. The search was limited to articles in the English and Persian languages that evaluate the barriers or facilitators of RU among Iranian nurses.

resultsA total of 11 articles were in the final dataset. The most important barriers to RU among Iranian nurses were related to the organization factors such as inadequate facilities; insufficient time on the job, lack of authority, physician cooperation, and administrative support. The most frequent facilitators of RU were education in enhancing nurses knowledge and skills in research evaluation, support from knowledgeable nursing colleagues and nursing faculty in the clinical setting, access to an expert committee for clinical appraisal, improving skills in English language and searching for articles, sufficient economic resources to carry out research, and having access to more facilities such as internet.

conclusionIranian nurses encounter with the same difficulties as to other countries regarding RU; while setting related barriers were the predominant obstacles to RU among them. Therefore, health managers are expected to plan appropriate strategies to smooth the progress of RU by nurses in their practice.

Indexed as

IranNursesResearchResearch utilizationReview

Identifiers

PMID25717456
PMCPMC4334178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.