ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
Research Literacy and Research Engagement Following Project-Embedded Support Among Clinical Nurses: An Exploratory Nonrandomised Controlled Study.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo explore whether sustained, multicomponent, project-embedded support was associated with changes in clinical nurses' research literacy, research translation capability and research engagement.
backgroundOne-off research training may improve knowledge but often provides limited support for moving clinical questions into sustained research action.
methodsAn exploratory nonrandomised controlled pretest-posttest study was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in eastern China. Forty-four nurses were analysed (intervention n = 19; concurrent comparison n = 25). The intervention combined structured research activities, an ongoing research clinic, project tracking and individualised support. The four core outcomes were functional research literacy, interactive research literacy, critical research literacy and research translation capability. Theory-informed secondary outcomes related to research opportunity, motivation and behaviour were also assessed and objective project progression was described. Baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used as the main adjusted analysis, with a sensitivity model additionally adjusting for postgraduate education and senior professional title.
resultsInteractive research literacy was the only core outcome with a significant unadjusted time × group interaction. In baseline-adjusted ANCOVA, all four core outcomes favoured the intervention after false discovery rate correction; after additional adjustment, only interactive research literacy remained statistically significant (adjusted difference 0.348, 95% CI 0.113-0.584; p = 0.005). Objective project milestones were observed in the intervention group but were not available for between-group comparison.
conclusionsProject-embedded support was associated most consistently with interactive research literacy. Findings for the other core domains were less robust after additional covariate adjustment. Given the nonrandom allocation, small sample and preliminary outcome measure, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers may consider longitudinal structures that connect research learning with real clinical projects, repeated dialogue, methodological support and project follow-up, while evaluating such programmes with longer follow-up and stronger comparative designs.
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.