ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
Facilitators and barriers to innovation and research capacity among clinical nurses: A qualitative systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
Background: Innovation and research capacity among clinical nurses is critical to advancing nursing science, improving patient outcomes, and strengthening healthcare systems. However, evidence on its facilitators and barriers remains fragmented across different cultural and practice contexts. Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative evidence on the facilitators and barriers influencing clinical nurses' innovation and research capacity, and to generate evidence-based suggestions for nursing practice, education, and healthcare policy. Design: A systematic review and qualitative meta-aggregation. Participants: Clinical nurses and registered nurses practicing in healthcare settings, with sample sizes across the included studies ranging from 6 to 120 participants. Methods: The review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for qualitative evidence synthesis and reported according to the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research guideline. Comprehensive searches were performed in ten databases from inception to June 30, 2026, and reference lists of included articles were also screened. Methodological quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and findings were synthesized using the meta-aggregation approach. Results: Twenty-eight qualitative studies were included. The synthesis yielded four synthesized findings: (1) Navigating organizational culture and structural support; (2) The dual nature of professional knowledge and competence; (3) The mediating role of leadership and mentorship; and (4) The internal process of motivation and self-efficacy. Conclusion: Clinical nurses' innovation and research capacity is a complex, dynamic process negotiated between constraining and enabling factors across organizational, educational, relational and personal dimensions. Moving it from an implicit to an explicit professional competency requires coordinated action from healthcare administrators, educators, and policymakers to address systemic barriers and leverage key facilitators identified in this synthesis.
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.