Observational studyNursing open2026
Scores of Evidence-Based Knowledge, Practice and Attitude Among Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Observational study in Nursing 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe the level of knowledge, skills, practice, attitude and overall score of EBP among nurses at all levels, including nurse aides, Registered Nurses (RNs), nurse managers and directors.
designA descriptive, cross-sectional, survey-based study.
methodsThe study was conducted between June and July 2024 at a single-site hospital in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The validated Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ), distributed to 359 nurses, yielded a convenience sample of nurses (n = 224). Descriptive data analysis, effect sizes and confidence intervals were done using SPSS version 20. One-way ANOVA was used for normally distributed data, while the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for non-normally distributed data. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons and control the family-wise error rate. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsNurses scored highest in knowledge and skills, followed by practice and attitude. The demographic characteristics show some variation across all domains, with significant differences in nurses' position within the practice domain (p = 0.027) and in the total score (p = 0.039). Post hoc analysis revealed that nurse aides had significantly higher practice scores than RNs (adjusted p = 0.033) and managers (adjusted p = 0.048), whereas no significant difference was found between RNs and managers (adjusted p = 1.000). Additionally, nurse aides had significantly higher total scores compared to RNs (adjusted p = 0.045).
conclusionNurses score highly in knowledge and skills but lower in practice and attitude. Therefore, it is necessary to improve nurses' EBP competency through ongoing education and leadership support. REPORTING
methodTo strengthen the validity of the research, it was planned, conducted and reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: None.
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.