Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38174632›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025

Is this to be another project that fizzles out? Using the i-PARIHS framework to evaluate implementation of a mentoring programme.

Lena Nyholm, Lena Gunningberg, Eva Jangland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Lena NyholmDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Nursing Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0085-7963
Lena GunningbergDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Eva JanglandDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Nursing Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

Swedish Government
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is well-known that the implementation of evidence into clinical practice is complex and challenging. The integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework conceptualizes successful implementation of evidence into practice. As the implementation of the mentoring programme proved to be a challenge, it seemed valuable to retrospectively study the implementation process using a framework like the i-PARIHS.

aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of a multifaceted mentoring programme for bedside nurses using the i-PARIHS framework, to identify factors that influenced the implementation.

designA secondary analysis of qualitative data using the i-PARIHS framework as the theoretical lens.

methodA directed content analysis was performed, driven theoretically by the i-PARIHS framework. The analysis focused separately on (a) characteristics of the innovation and (b) successful and hindering factors in the implementation process.

resultsThe results showed that successful factors influencing implementation of the mentoring programme included supportive and actively involved formal leaders and supervisors at the unit level. A major hindering factor was lack of resources in the form of personnel, time and money. A lack of facilitators, particularly experienced facilitators, throughout the organization hindered implementation. The i-PARIHS framework offered a structured how-to guide to identify factors that influenced the implementation process.

conclusionImplementation of the mentoring programme was a challenge for the organization. Investment into implementation should continue, with a more structured facilitation process. A structured and prioritized management system, including supportive leadership at the unit level, should be established by the hospital board. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: There is a need for experienced facilitators throughout the organization. This is crucial to achieve sustainability in the mentoring programme and ensure that the large investments of staff resources and money do not fizzle out. IMPACT: What problem did the study address? Implementing a mentoring programme for nurses in a large university hospital proved to be a challenge. Therefore, it seemed valuable to retrospectively study the implementation process using a framework like the i-PARIHS. What were the main findings? A lack of facilitators, particularly experienced facilitators, throughout the organization hindered the implementation. The i-PARIHS framework offered a structured how-to guide to identify factors that influenced the implementation process. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? Our findings are important for leaders on all levels in a hospital setting, including the hospital board, heads of departments and nurse managers. REPORTING

methodConsolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups is used. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Indexed as

MentoringMentorsNursing Staff, HospitalAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchRetrospective Studiescase studyfacilitatorsimplementationleadershipmentoring programme

Identifiers

PMID38174632
PMCPMC12535362

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.