Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bridging the divide: a survey of nurses’ opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization in the practice setting

Hutchinson, Alison Margaret, Johnston, Linda·2004·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Background. Many researchers have explored the barriers to research uptake in order to overcome them and identify strategies to facilitate research utilization. However, the research–practice gap remains a persistent issue for the nursing profession. Aims and objectives. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of perceived influences on nurses’ utilization of research, and explore what differences or commonalities exist between the findings of this research and those of studies that have been conducted in various countries during the past 10 years. Design. Nurses were surveyed to elicit their opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization. The instrument comprised a 29‐item validated questionnaire, titled Barriers to Research Utilisation Scale (BARRIERS Scale), an eight‐item scale of facilitators, provision for respondents to record additional barriers and/or facilitators and a series of demographic questions. Method. The questionnaire was administered in 2001 to all nurses (n = 761) working at a major teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia. A 45% response rate was achieved. Results. Greatest barriers to research utilization reported included time constraints, lack of awareness of available research literature, insufficient authority to change practice, inadequate skills in critical appraisal and lack of support for implementation of research findings. Greatest facilitators to research utilization reported included availability of more time to review and implement research findings, availability of more relevant research and colleague support. Conclusion. One of the most striking features of the findings of the present study is that perceptions of Australian nurses are remarkably consistent with reported perceptions of nurses in the US, UK and Northern Ireland during the past decade. Relevance to clinical practice. If the use of research evidence in practice results in better outcomes for our patients, this behoves us, as a profession, to address issues surrounding support for implementation of research findings, authority to change practice, time constraints and ability to critically appraise research with conviction and a sense of urgency.

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.1365-2702.2003.00865.x

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Metadata

Authors
Hutchinson, A. M., & Johnston, L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-02-16
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
304-315
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W1985765065
Cited by
307
References
34
FWCI
32.84
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: Bridging the divide: a survey of nurses’ opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization in the practice setting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00865.x
The paper
Hutchinson, A. M., & Johnston, L. (2004). Bridging the divide: a survey of nurses’ opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization in the practice setting. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00865.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.