SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2026
Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Evidence-Based Healthcare Competence: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Evidence-Based Healthcare Competence: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring school nurses' potential to strengthen young people's resilience to misinformation by promoting critical health literacy in Norway.Health promotion international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses are pivotal in EBHC implementation; however, its adoption remains limited, highlighting the need to investigate nurses' experiences and perceptions of their EBHC competence.
aimTo critically appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence of nurses' experiences and perceptions of EBHC competence.
designA qualitative systematic review.
methodsThe review followed the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. Inclusion criteria were qualitative studies published in Finnish, Swedish or English that explored nurses' experiences and perceptions of EBHC competence. Data were synthesised using JBI's meta-aggregation method and the findings were graded with the ConQual approach. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Medic, PubMed, Scopus and grey literature from EBSCO Open Dissertations and MedNar, searched in December 2023.
resultsSeventeen qualitative studies were included. The study findings were generated from four synthesised findings with low confidence scores. The synthesised findings were: (1) Nurses' competence in Global Health, (2) Nurses' competence in enhancing Evidence generation, (3) Nurses' competence in optimising Evidence Transfer and (4) Nurses' competence in effective implementation of evidence. A new finding of this systematic review was that nurses did not express their experiences or perceptions on evidence synthesis.
conclusionNurses' experiences of EBHC competence focus mainly on evidence implementation and global health. The lack of findings to evidence synthesis suggests that core principles of the EBHC model are not yet fully embedded in nursing practice. Nurses emphasised the need for greater support for developing EBHC competence. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Integration of EBHC into education, mentoring and adequate resources enhances nurses' competence, motivation and commitment to EBHC sub-dimensions, while also strengthening their professional confidence and development. IMPACT: Strengthening nurses' EBHC competencies contributes to supporting the delivery of high-quality, effective and sustainable healthcare services. REPORTING
methodPRISMA guidelines followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.
trial registrationPROSPERO-registered: CRD42021285179.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.