Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35244324›Full record

ReviewWorldviews on evidence-based nursing2022

Nurses' sources of information to inform clinical practice: An integrative review to guide evidence-based practice.

Mariann Fossum, Anne Opsal, Anna Ehrenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Worldviews on evidence-based nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Mariann FossumCentre for Caring Research, Southern Norway, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-4277
Anne OpsalDepartment of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5495-6460
Anna EhrenbergSchool of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3964-196X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-based practice in nursing is challenging and relies on the sources of information used by nurses to inform clinical practice. An integrative review from 2008 revealed that nurses more frequently relied on information from colleagues than information from high-level sources such as systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

aimsTo describe the information sources used by registered nurses to inform their clinical practice.

methodsAn integrative review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, based on empirical research studies published from January 2007 until June 2021. The included studies were appraised, following which the identified sources of information from quantitative studies were compiled and ranked. Finally, the qualitative text data were summarized into categories.

resultsFifty-two studies from various countries were included. The majority of studies employed a quantitative design and used original instruments. Peers were ranked as the number one source of information to inform nurses' clinical practice. However, computers and reference materials are now ranked among the top four most used information sources. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Improvement in computer and information searching skills, as well as the availability of computerized decision support tools, may contribute to nurses' frequent use of digital sources and reference material to inform clinical practice. This review shows that nurses' most frequently reported peer nurses as their source of information in clinical practice. Information sources such as computers and reference materials were ranked higher, and information from patients was ranked lower than in the 2008 review. Developing and standardizing instruments and ensuring high-quality study design is critical for further research on nurses' sources of information for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeNursesHumansevidence-based practiceintegrative reviewregistered nursessources of information

Identifiers

PMID35244324
PMCPMC9790517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.