CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth and Medical Research Impacts

Assessing the relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing: systematic literature review

Meijers, Judith M.M., Janssen, Maaike A.P., Cummings, Greta G., Wallin, Lars, Estabrooks, Carole A., Y.G. Halfens, Ruud·2006·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03954.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim. This paper reports a systematic literature review examining relationships between contextual factors and research utilization in nursing, examining the strength of these relationships, and mapping the contextual factors to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services model of research implementation. Background. Healthcare organizations have long struggled with how to improve clinical care outcomes. Understanding which contextual factors enhance nursing research utilization may support organizations in creating environments that facilitate the uptake of evidence in nursing practice to improve these outcomes. Methods. A search of five electronic bibliographic databases and a manual search of specific journals were conducted for studies that were published in English and examined contextual factors as independent variables and research utilization as the dependent variable from the perspective of nurses working in clinical practice. The studies were assessed for quality of design, sample, measurement and statistical analysis. Results. Ten papers met the search criteria. Six contextual factors were identified as having a statistically significant relationship with research utilization, namely the role of the nurse, multi‐faceted access to resources, organizational climate, multi‐faceted support, time for research activities and provision of education. The contextual factors could successfully be mapped to the dimensions of context in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework (context, culture, leadership), with the exception of evaluation. Conclusion. The strength of the relationship between the six contextual factors and research utilization by nurses is still largely unknown as (a) few studies were found of sufficient quality because of methodological limitations and (b) the results in reviewed studies were mixed. More robust methods in future work would yield a better understanding of the full impact of contextual factors on nurses’ use of research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03954.x

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Evidence suggests that many individual level factors including beliefs, attitudes, motivations, values, skills, competence, behavior, and characteristics may be influential.

    “Evidence suggests that many individual level factors including beliefs, attitudes, motivations, values, skills, competence, behavior, and characteristics may be influential [40,41].”

    From The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework (2013) · cites this paper as [41]

  • The concept of the individual might incorporate capability, capacity, motivation (including recognising a need for change), resilience, acceptability, feelings, knowledge and beliefs (including self efficacy) about the intervention/evidence, position and fit within the organization/social system, and approach to decision-making.

    “we propose that the concept of the individual might incorporate: capability, capacity, motivation (including recognising a need for change), resilience, acceptability, feelings, knowledge and beliefs (including self efficacy) about the intervention/evidence, position and fit within the organization/social system, and approach to decision-making (e.g., experimentation, use of information).”

    From The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework (2013) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Meijers, J. M. M., Janssen, M. A. P., Cummings, G. G., Wallin, L., Estabrooks, C. A., & Y.G. Halfens, R.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-11
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
622-635
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03954.x
OpenAlex
W2013644984
Cited by
214
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Health and Medical Research Impacts
Keywords
research utilization, contextual factors, evidence-based practice, nursing role, organizational climate, organizational support, research resources, research training, PARIHS framework, evidence-based practice implementation, nursing practice
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Diffusion of Innovation, Education, Nursing, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research, 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