Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35600005›Full record

ArticleSAGE open nursing

Barriers to Research Utilization in Nursing: A Systematic Review (2002-2021).

Fritz Gerald V Jabonete, Rachel Edita O Roxas

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assessing uptake of the core outcome set in anxiety disorder clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fritz Gerald V JaboneteNational University, Manila, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0654-3618
Rachel Edita O RoxasNational University, Manila, Philippines.
National University · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There is an existing gap between what people learned from theory and what they clinically practiced, as revealed in research studies in nursing. This gap is primarily due to identified barriers in utilizing the research findings in actual nursing practice. Objective: To present a scientific mapping of the Scopus-indexed literature published from 2002 to 2021, which studied barriers to research utilization in nursing using the BARRIER scale. Methods: This systematic review utilized bibliometric analysis. One hundred seventy-nine extracted literature from Scopus was manually reviewed, and the study included 53 documents for further analysis. Results: Remarkably, almost three-fourths of the documents identified setting-related factors as the most common barrier to research utilization in nursing (n = 39, 73.58%). This is followed by presentation-related factors (n = 16.98%) and nurse-related factors (n = 5, 9.43%), respectively. Findings revealed that insufficient time at work in implementing new ideas was perceived as the top barrier in research utilization in nursing. Conclusion: It is crucial to determine the hindrances to the utilization of research findings. The results of this study establish the connection between research and evidence-based practice which stimulates in meeting the gap in the current nursing practice. Future studies must include research utilization studies that apply tools other than the BARRIER scale.

Indexed as

barriersbibliometricnursingresearch useresearch utilizationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35600005
PMCPMC9118897
OpenAlexW4282934118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.