Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41229658›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025

"Is this professionally correct?": understanding the criteria nurses use to evaluate information.

Brandon Patterson, Anne R Diekema, Elizabeth Betsy S Hopkins, Duane Wilson, Nena Schvaneveldt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Brandon Pattersonb.patterson@utah.edu, Technology Engagement Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2432-4731
Anne R Diekemaannediekema@suu.edu, Assistant Professor, Department Chair, and Instruction and Outreach Librarian, Gerald R. Sherratt Library, Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0014-4170
Elizabeth Betsy S Hopkinsbetsy_hopkins@byu.edu, Nursing Librarian, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2438-3240
Duane Wilsonduane_wilson@byu.edu, Assessment Facilitator, Harold. B Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5776-0081
Nena Schvaneveldtnena.schvaneveldt@utah.edu, Education Librarian, Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-6298

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Nurses must evaluate and sift through large quantities of information of varying quality as part of patient care. This study sought to determine nurses' evaluation criteria when encountering health information, including consumer health information written for the general public and scholarly sources, such as journal articles. Methods: We employed a mixed-methods approach with a survey and follow-up individual interviews. In both the survey and interviews, nurses were asked to evaluate information written for the general public or a scholarly audience. Interviewees were encouraged to think aloud to elucidate their criteria. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Criteria used for both consumer and scholarly information were similar, with accuracy, relevance, authority, purpose, and currency as the most frequently reported. Nurses often relied on easily identifiable characteristics, such as where information came from, funding sources, intended audience, or its concordance with their prior knowledge. Nurses demonstrated awareness of the need to evaluate methodology in studies, especially empirical studies, for accuracy and relevance. However, they were less likely to evaluate methodology in review articles. Conclusions: Nurses value accurate, relevant information; however, their evaluation criteria are often superficial. Educators should encourage nursing students to engage more deeply with the nuances of evaluation. While many nurses pointed to research and peer review as evidence of accuracy, fewer demonstrated a deeper understanding of how to evaluate particular research methodologies, such as systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationNursesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCritical AppraisalEvaluation CriteriaEvidence-Based NursingEvidence-Based PracticeInformation LiteracyNurses

Identifiers

PMID41229658
PMCPMC12604069

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.