Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41272687›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2025

Organisational contextual drivers of evidence-based practice across acute and primary care.

Jude Ominyi, Aaron Nwedu, Ukpai Eze, Anastasia Ngon, Uchenna Chima

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

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

5 authors.

Jude OminyiSchool of Health, Sciences & Society, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK.
Aaron NweduDavid Umahi Federal University of Health Sciences, Uburu, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. nweduab@dufuhs.edu.ng.
Ukpai EzeFaculty of Health, Medicine and Society, University of Chester, Chester, UK.
Anastasia NgonFaculty of Business & Law, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK.
Uchenna ChimaSchool of Nursing and Allied Health, Birmingham Newman University, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence based practice (EBP) is widely recognised as fundamental to high quality nursing care, yet implementation remains uneven across healthcare settings in England. Attention has shifted from individual barriers to organisational context. Leadership, team dynamics, access to resources, and social capital shape how nurses engage with EBP. Despite national policies promoting research active environments, how these ambitions are realised at the frontline is unclear. This study examined how organisational factors influence nurses’ implementation of evidence across acute and primary care.

methodsA cross-sectional design was used with registered nurses working in acute and primary care settings. Two validated instruments, the Evidence Based Practice Implementation Scale and the Alberta Context Tool, were administered. A nonprobability sampling strategy targeted the acute and general practice nursing workforce. Response distributions were monitored across pre specified strata and fieldwork closed once coverage and precision criteria were met. Descriptive statistics summarised participant and organisational characteristics. Inferential analyses compared settings, mediation modelling tested the role of social capital in the leadership to EBP pathway, and cluster analysis identified implementation profiles.

resultsEngagement with EBP was moderate overall (M = 3.16, SD = 0.88) with no significant difference between sectors (p = 0.38). Acute care nurses reported higher leadership support (M = 4.01 versus 3.78, p = 0.008) and better access to structural resources (M = 3.35 vs. 3.10, p = 0.004). Within acute care, leadership differed across specialties, with higher scores in ICU or CCU and general medicine, F (4, 636) = 4.12, p = 0.003. Social capital significantly mediated the association between leadership and EBP implementation (β = 0.15, 95% CI 0.10–0.21). Three engagement clusters were identified, high 32%, moderate 45%, and low 23%, each with distinct organisational profiles.

conclusionOrganisational context, particularly leadership and social capital, is central to nurses’ capacity to implement evidence. Variation across specialties and sectors indicates that a one size fits all approach is unlikely to succeed. Policy relevant levers include formalising protected time, resourcing embedded facilitation, investing in knowledge infrastructure, and expanding clinical academic pathways, to create environments where evidence use is routine and supported. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Acute careEvidence-based practiceImplementationLeadershipNursing workforceOrganisational contextPrimary careProfessional developmentSocial capital

Identifiers

PMID41272687
PMCPMC12801664

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.