ArticleBMJ open2026
How continuing professional education interventions enhance the uptake of evidence-based practices among oncology nurses: a realist review protocol.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOncology nurses are pivotal to delivering high-quality cancer care; yet, the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBPs) remains inconsistent. Though continuing professional education is widely used to support EBP uptake, persistent gaps remain, likely driven by the intricate and interrelated mechanisms that unfold differently across individual, organisational and system contexts.
objectiveTo understand how, why, for whom and under what conditions continuing professional education interventions enhance (or fail to enhance) the uptake of EBPs among oncology nurses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This realist review will adhere to the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards methodological standards. The Theoretical Domains Framework will guide the exploration of potential mechanisms. 33 initial programme theories, developed from the Theoretical Domains Framework, prior reviews, expert input and consultations with interested parties working in oncology (eg, oncology nurses, managers), will be refined through systematic searches (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar). These initial programme theories represent hypothesised Context-Mechanism-Outcomes Configurations that may influence the uptake of EBPs among oncology nurses. Eligible peer-reviewed and grey literature from high-income countries in English or French will be screened in duplicate. Data will be coded deductively and inductively in MaxQDA and synthesised into Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations. These configurations will be reviewed in collaboration with interested parties. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be disseminated through open-access, peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Key stakeholders, including various professional associations (eg, the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology and the International Society of Nurses in Cancer Care), will be actively engaged to ensure the clinical relevance of the findings and to maximise their translation into nursing practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251133710.
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.