Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35281285›Full record

ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2022

Experiences of nurse managers and practitioners on implementation of an evidence-based practice intervention.

Catherine Haulesi Chiwaula, Diana L Jere

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Catherine Haulesi ChiwaulaKamuzu College of Nursing, University of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2307-649X
Diana L JereKamuzu College of Nursing, University of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-7261

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: An evidence based practice (EBP) research project was undertaken to implement EBP interventions utilising the Iowa model in order to build the capacity of the nurses in using research evidence to improve decision making and quality care. Aim: Exploring and understanding the experiences of nurse managers and practitioners who participated in the EBP change project. Setting: The study was conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary hospital in Lilongwe district in Malawi. Methods: A qualitative approach and an exploratory-descriptive design was employed. The ICU was purposively selected as a unit where the EBP change project was implemented. A purposive sample of 10 nurse managers and practitioners was selected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. All interviews were audio-recorded with a digital recorder and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcripts. Results: The participants' experiences of implementing EBP interventions were underpinned by four themes namely, evidence-based patient management, effective nursing care, competence in delivering EBP, and factors interplaying in EBP. Use of model, protocol and availability of supportive managers and team were major determinants of EBP. Conclusion: It is recommended to continue utilising the Iowa Model to facilitate building the EBP capacities of providers during scale up. Contribution: Utilising the Iowa Model facilitates building of the capacity and empowers frontline nurses to effectively develop, implement and evaluate discipline specific EBP changes needed to improve practice and optimum care.

Indexed as

barriers of EBPEBP experiencesevidence-based practicefacilitators of EBPqualitative approachqualitative design

Identifiers

PMID35281285
PMCPMC8905460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.