SynthesisBMJ open2026
The experiences of nurses in implementing clinical nursing research: a qualitative meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to systematically synthesise and analyse nurses' experiences in implementing clinical nursing research (CNR) to inform administrators and researchers involved in CNR.
designQualitative meta-synthesis. DATA SOURCES: The following six databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO) and Embase. The search period included material published up to December 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included qualitative studies exploring perspectives, experiences and other similar factors. JBI Critical Appraisal Tool (2024 edition) was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search, study selection and data coding. Using principles of similarity and integration, findings from the included studies were grouped into general categories. A final synthesis was produced through analysis of the relationship between categories.
results11 studies were included, from which four themes were identified: feelings and motivations prior to participation in CNR; understanding the role of the clinical nursing researcher; factors hindering CNR implementation; and expectations for CNR development. These themes comprised 12 sub-themes.
conclusionThis review highlights nurses' experience in implementing CNR. Strengthening motivation and clarifying the roles and responsibilities associated with CNR may facilitate the translation of research findings into clinical practice. In parallel, healthcare administrators should foster a supportive CNR culture and provide resources to address barriers to implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025631159.
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.