Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40682329›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026

Contextual Factors Affecting Evidence-Based Practice in Orthopaedic Nursing and Rehabilitation: A Mixed Methods Study.

Madeleine Winberg, Erika Fjordkvist, Eva Joelsson-Alm, Siw Carlfjord, Maria Hälleberg Nyman, Ann Catrine Eldh

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04700969 (Onset PrevenTIon of Urinary Retention in Orthopaedic Nursing and Rehabilitation, OPTION - a Knowledge Implementation Study on a Facilitation Strategy for Multi-professional Clinical Champion Teams), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT04700969 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Onset PrevenTIon of Urinary Retention in Orthopaedic Nursing and Rehabilitation, OPTION - a Knowledge Implementation Study on a Facilitation Strategy for Multi-professional Clinical Champion Teams

TypeinterventionalSponsorÖrebro University, SwedenRan2020 to 2027Enrolled20ConditionsUrinary Retention, Hip Fractures, Hip ArthritisArms: A support program to facilitate implementation of evidence-based practice for postoperative urinary retention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Madeleine WinbergDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6181-3932
Erika FjordkvistFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Orebro, Sweden.
Eva Joelsson-AlmDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9041-2468
Siw CarlfjordDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
Maria Hälleberg NymanFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Orebro, Sweden.
Ann Catrine EldhDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linkoping, Sweden.

Funding

Nyckelfonden Research FoundationRegion Örebro CountySwedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, FORTE STYA-2020/0002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo better understand what enables evidence-based practice, this study investigated contextual factors influencing evidence-based practice in general, and in relation to the implementation of bladder-monitoring guidelines in orthopaedic care.

designConvergent parallel mixed method.

methodsThis study was part of a hybrid research project across 17 Swedish orthopaedic sites. The data collection (2021-2023) included interviews with orthopaedic staff and patients post-hip surgery, patient survey free-text responses, and a staff survey on organisational context. Data were analysed with deductive content analysis and descriptive statistics, later integrated using a mixed methods approach.

resultsEvidence-based practice was supported by context factors such as staff collaboration and multiprofessional engagement. Staff addressed patient safety and equality by using evidence-based guidelines, but rarely involved the patients. Orthopaedic fast-track procedures positioned patients as passive recipients, while staff voiced a call for a more person-centred context. Positive attitudes, leadership engagement, use of champions, and adequate staffing enabled evidence-based practice, though a shortage in evaluation and high staff turnover hindered its implementation.

conclusionOrthopaedic context is characterised by several enabling organisational context factors for evidence-based practice, although patients lacking recognition of their needs and queries justify greater focus on person-centredness and mutual information exchange. Audit and feedback are crucial for improvements, but were lacking in the orthopaedic care context. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Assessments of efforts made to implement evidence-based practice and its outcomes should incorporate nursing care. Slimmed care processes require attention to ensure patient participation. IMPACT: The orthopaedic care context is enabling for evidence-based practice, although staff are challenged by fast-track procedures with extensive information exchange and insufficient person-centredness. REPORTING

methodThe Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation & Health Sciences checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: No patient or public contribution.

trial registrationIdentifier: NCT04700969.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based NursingEvidence-Based PracticeOrthopedic NursingRehabilitation NursingAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwedenbladder carecontextevidence‐based practicefacilitationhip surgeryimplementationnursingorthopaedic care

Identifiers

PMID40682329
PMCPMC12994635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.