ArticleBMC nursing2026
Nurses experiences of adopting evidence-based practice in Saudi healthcare: organizational, educational, and cultural influences from qualitative focus groups.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) is expected in nursing, and its implementation is still limited by workload, evidence access, and organizational culture. In Saudi settings, nurses report mixed readiness for EBP and recurring constraints related to resources, autonomy, and change processes in daily care. This exploratory study aimed to examine the perspectives of postgraduate nursing students (Master's and doctoral level) on barriers and facilitators to EBP in the Saudi healthcare context, using the Johns Hopkins Practice Evidence Translation (PET) model as the analytic framework.
methodsA framework-guided thematic analysis of recorded focus group transcripts used deductive coding to PET domains (Practice, Evidence, Translation) with dual coding across two purposively sampled focus groups: Master's-level nursing students (FG1; n = 5) and doctoral-level nursing students (FG2; n = 5), yielding N = 10 participants.
resultsIn Practice participants framed EBP as "not personal preference," integrating research evidence, clinical experience, and patient preferences, and described adapting tools and protocols locally. Key practice barriers include bedside resistance when EBP steps were viewed as extra work and hierarchical norms that constrained nursing autonomy. In Evidence, participants reported variable EBP education and research literacy and inconsistent organizational access to journals and databases. In Translation, facilitators included leadership support and capacity-building, while barriers included multi-level resistance and slow approval processes.
conclusionPET mapping highlights priorities to protect time for EBP work, build research skills, ensure reliable evidence access, and streamline translation pathways.
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.