CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 765Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of `context'

McCormack, Brendan, Kitson, Alison, Harvey, Gill, Rycroft‐Malone, Jo, Titchen, Angie, Seers, Kate·2002·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02150.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of `context' Aim of paper. This paper presents the findings of a concept analysis of `context' in relation to the successful implementation of evidence into practice. Background. In 1998, a conceptual framework was developed that represented the interplay and interdependence of the many factors influencing the uptake of evidence into practice [Kitson A., Harvey G. & McCormack B. (1998) Quality in Health Care 7 , 149]. One of the key elements of the framework was `context', that is, the setting in which evidence is implemented. It was proposed that key factors in the context of health care practice had a significant impact on the implementation and uptake of evidence. As part of the on‐going development and refinement of the framework, the elements within it have undergone a concept analysis in order to provide some theoretical and conceptual rigour to its content. Methods. Morse's [Morse J.M. (1995) Advances in Nursing Science 17 , 31; Morse J.M., Hupcey J.E. & Mitcham C. (1996) Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice. An International Journal 10 , 253] approach to concept analysis was used as a framework to review semi‐nal texts critically and the supporting research literature in order to establish the conceptual clarity and maturity of `context' in relation to its importance in the implementation of evidence‐based practice. Findings : Characteristics of the concept of context in terms of organizational culture, leadership and measurement are outlined. A main finding is that context specifically means `the setting in which practice takes place', but that the term itself does little to reflect the complexity of the concept. Whilst the themes of culture and leadership are central characteristics of the concept, the theme of `measurement' is better articulated through the broader term of `evaluation'. Conclusions. There is inconsistency in the use of the term and this has an impact on claims of its importance. The concept of context lacks clarity because of the many issues that impact on the way it is characterized. Additionally, there is limited understanding of the consequences of working with different contexts. Thus, the implications of using context as a variable in research studies exploring research implementation are as yet largely unknown. The concept of context is partially developed but in need of further delineation and comparison.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02150.x

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCormack, B., Kitson, A., Harvey, G., Rycroft‐Malone, J., Titchen, A., & Seers, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03-13
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
94-104
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02150.x
OpenAlex
W2148463528
Cited by
765
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 50
FWCI
51.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
context, evidence-based practice, implementation of evidence, organizational culture, leadership, measurement, evaluation, conceptual clarity, research uptake
MeSH terms
Culture, Humans, Leadership, Politics, Professional Practice, Psychology, Socioeconomic Factors, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review