Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38961494›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2024

The impact of evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare settings: a mixed methods systematic review.

Maritta Välimäki, Shuang Hu, Tella Lantta, Kirsi Hipp, Jaakko Varpula, Jiarui Chen, Gaoming Liu, Yao Tang, Wenjun Chen, Xianhong Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors.

Maritta VälimäkiDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland.
Shuang HuXiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China.
Tella LanttaDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland.
Kirsi HippDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland.
Jaakko VarpulaDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Turku, Turku, FI-20014, Finland.
Jiarui ChenXiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China.
Gaoming LiuHunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, 410008, China.
Yao TangXiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China.
Wenjun ChenXiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China.
Xianhong LiXiangya Nursing, School of Central South University, Changsha, 410013, China. xianhong_li@csu.edu.cn.

Funding

Finnish National Agency of Education, Asia Programme 26/270/2020University of Turku 26003424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe central component in impactful healthcare decisions is evidence. Understanding how nurse leaders use evidence in their own managerial decision making is still limited. This mixed methods systematic review aimed to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe the measured and perceived effects of evidence-based leadership on nurse leaders and their performance, organizational, and clinical outcomes.

methodsWe included articles using any type of research design. We referred nurses, nurse managers or other nursing staff working in a healthcare context when they attempt to influence the behavior of individuals or a group in an organization using an evidence-based approach. Seven databases were searched until 11 November 2021. JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-experimental studies, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to evaluate the Risk of bias in quasi-experimental studies, case series, mixed methods studies, respectively. The JBI approach to mixed methods systematic reviews was followed, and a parallel-results convergent approach to synthesis and integration was adopted.

resultsThirty-one publications were eligible for the analysis: case series (n = 27), mixed methods studies (n = 3) and quasi-experimental studies (n = 1). All studies were included regardless of methodological quality. Leadership problems were related to the implementation of knowledge into practice, the quality of nursing care and the resource availability. Organizational data was used in 27 studies to understand leadership problems, scientific evidence from literature was sought in 26 studies, and stakeholders' views were explored in 24 studies. Perceived and measured effects of evidence-based leadership focused on nurses' performance, organizational outcomes, and clinical outcomes. Economic data were not available.

conclusionsThis is the first systematic review to examine how evidence is used to solve leadership problems and to describe its measured and perceived effects from different sites. Although a variety of perceptions and effects were identified on nurses' performance as well as on organizational and clinical outcomes, available knowledge concerning evidence-based leadership is currently insufficient. Therefore, more high-quality research and clinical trial designs are still needed. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The study was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021259624).

Indexed as

Evidence-based leadershipHealth services administrationOrganizational developmentQuality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID38961494
PMCPMC11221094

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.