ArticleHeliyon2021
Action research improved general prerequisites for evidence-based practice.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was part of an action research project that was performed to implement a clinical pathway for patients on mechanical ventilation and simultaneously explore the implementation process in a Swedish intensive care unit. The aim of this questionnaire study was to evaluate whether an action research methodology could affect the general prerequisites for evidence-based practice (EBP). Informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, the study included registered nurses, assistant nurses and anesthesiologists in the unit at start of the project (n = 50) and at follow-up (n = 44). Data was collected with the Evaluation Before Implementation Questionnaire and the Attitudes towards Guidelines Scale. The results revealed that the general prerequisites for EBP in the setting improved. Compared to baseline measurements, the staff at follow-up conversed significantly more about the importance of the patients' experiences, research utilization, context and facilitation, while changes with respect to clinical experiences were not significant. The attitudes towards guidelines were perceived as positive at baseline as well as at follow-up and did not significantly change. Longer professional experience was associated with a slightly lower probability of perceiving that the importance of research utilization was discussed and reflected upon, while belonging to a profession with longer education was associated with a higher probability of this perception. Compared to registered nurses and assistant nurses, the anesthesiologists perceived, to a greater extent, that the importance of clinical experience was discussed and reflected upon in the setting, while there was no significant association with the length of professional experience and/or specific professions regarding the other components. In conclusion, using action research to implement a clinical pathway methodology seems to set in motion various mechanisms that improve some but not all prerequisites that, according to the PARIHS framework, are advantageous for EBP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.