Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42226065›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Learning to engage in clinical research: a qualitative study developing a behavioural pathway model among nurses in China.

Qian Wang, Qian Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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. Review
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

2 authors.

Qian WangNursing Department, Affiliated People's Hospital of Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Runzhou District Zhenjiang, Zhenjiang, 212100, Jiangsu Province, China.
Qian LiNursing Department, Affiliated People's Hospital of Jiangsu University, No. 8 Dianli Road, Runzhou District Zhenjiang, Zhenjiang, 212100, Jiangsu Province, China. liqian_2021@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9745-0339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeveloping the capacity of health professionals to engage in research and practice improvement is an important goal of health professions education. In nursing, research literacy is considered a key capability that enables clinicians to understand research, formulate practice-based questions, and initiate research or quality improvement activities. In China, rapid expansion of nursing education has strengthened academic preparation; however, the ability of clinical nurses to translate clinical problems into research or improvement initiatives remains uneven across practice settings. Little is known about how nurses develop research literacy in clinical environments and how workplace conditions shape their engagement in research-related practice.

methodsThis qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 20 clinical nurses from multiple departments in a tertiary teaching hospital in China. Participants were purposively sampled to capture variation in career stage, educational background, and research exposure. Interviews explored how nurses understood research, interacted around research ideas, evaluated research value, and attempted to initiate or sustain research or improvement projects. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, informed by sensitising concepts from research literacy theory and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) behavioural framework.

resultsFour interrelated themes were identified. Nurses commonly accessed research evidence but often relied on conclusion-oriented interpretation rather than methodological appraisal, which limited their ability to adapt evidence to local practice. Research-related dialogue was mediated by hierarchy, professional positioning, team climate, and perceived psychological safety. Participants distinguished clinically meaningful research from "formalistic" projects perceived as procedural, symbolic, or driven mainly by institutional requirements. This distinction suggested that nurses were not rejecting research itself, but were critically judging whether research activity was clinically meaningful, morally legitimate, and feasible within everyday practice.Translating clinical concerns into research or improvement activities emerged as a fragile and non-linear pathway: ideas could be initiated, stalled, faded, or reactivated depending on workload pressures, leadership support, organisational opportunity, psychological safety, and perceived clinical meaning.

conclusionsEngaging in research in clinical nursing appears to be a socially situated professional practice rather than an individual technical skill. Research engagement develops through the interaction of research literacy, professional positioning, psychological safety, motivational commitment, and organisational opportunity within clinical workplaces. Based on these findings, the study proposes a heuristic behavioural pathway model describing how nurses move from interpreting research and recognising clinical problems to evaluating research value and attempting research or improvement action. The model highlights that this process is recursive and contingent rather than a stable linear progression, and may help identify where research engagement is likely to be interrupted or sustained in clinical nursing practice.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelChinaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchClinical nursesCOM-B modelHealth professions educationQualitative researchResearch engagementResearch literacy

Identifiers

PMID42226065
PMCPMC13436011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.