Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 490

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Individual determinants of research utilization: a systematic review

Estabrooks, Carole A., Floyd, Judith A., Scott‐Findlay, Shannon, O'Leary, Katherine A., Gushta, Matthew·2003·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Context. In order to design interventions that increase research use in nursing, it is necessary to have an understanding of what influences research use. Objective. To report findings on a systematic review of studies that examine individual characteristics of nurses and how they influence the utilization of research. Search strategy. A survey of published articles in English that examine the influence of individual factors on the research utilization behaviour of nurses, without restriction of the study design, from selected computerized databases and hand searches. Inclusion criteria. Articles had to measure one or more individual determinants of research utilization, measure the dependent variable (research utilization), and evaluate the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The studies also had to indicate the direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, report a P‐value and the statistic used, and indicate the magnitude of the relationship. Results. Six categories of potential individual determinants were identified: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, professional characteristics, education and other socio‐economic factors. Research design, sampling, measurement, and statistical analysis were examined to evaluate methodological quality. Methodological problems surfaced in all of the studies and, apart from attitude to research, there was little to suggest that any potential individual determinant influences research use. Conclusion. Important conceptual and measurement issues with regard to research utilization could be better addressed if research in the area were undertaken longitudinally by multi‐disciplinary teams of researchers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02748.x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Estabrooks, C. A., Floyd, J. A., Scott‐Findlay, S., O'Leary, K. A., & Gushta, M.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-08-14
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
506-520
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2170989842
Cited by
490
References
42
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual determinants of research utilization: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02748.x
The paper
Estabrooks, C. A., Floyd, J. A., Scott‐Findlay, S., O'Leary, K. A., & Gushta, M. (2003). Individual determinants of research utilization: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02748.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.