Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implementing evidence‐based practice: effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme

Open access
Wallen, Gwenyth R., Mitchell, Sandra A., Melnyk, Bernadette, Fineout‐Overholt, Ellen, Miller‐Davis, Claiborne, Yates, Janice, Hastings, Clare·2010·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

wallen g.r., mitchell s.a., melnyk b., fineout‐overholt e., miller‐davis c., yates j. & hastings c. (2010) Implementing evidence‐based practice: effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme.Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(12), 2761–2771. Aim. This paper is a report of the effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme designed to implement evidence‐based practice in a clinical research intensive environment. Background. Barriers to implementing evidence‐based practice are well‐documented in the literature. Evidence‐based practice is associated with higher quality care and better patient outcomes than care that is steeped in tradition. However, the integration of evidence‐based practice implementation into daily clinical practice remains inconsistent, and the chasm between research and bedside practice remains substantial. Methods. This quasi‐experimental mixed methods study included three focused discussions with nursing leadership and shared governance staff as well as pre‐ (N = 159) and post‐intervention (N = 99) questionnaires administered between June 2006 and February 2007. Online questionnaires included measures of organizational readiness, evidence‐based practice beliefs, evidence‐based practice implementation, job satisfaction, group cohesion and intent to leave nursing and the current job. Results. Participants in the evidence‐based practice mentorship programme had a larger increase in perceived organizational culture and readiness for evidence‐based practice and in evidence‐based practice belief scores than those who did not participate. Qualitative findings suggested that leadership support of a culture for evidence‐based practice and the dedication of resources for sustainability of the initiative needed to be a priority for engaging staff at all levels. Conclusion. These findings corroborate other studies showing that nurses’ beliefs about evidence‐based practice are significantly correlated with evidence‐based practice implementation and that having a mentor leads to stronger beliefs and greater implementation by nurses as well as greater group cohesion, which is a potent predictor of nursing turnover rates.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05442.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 224

Metadata

Authors
Wallen, G. R., Mitchell, S. A., Melnyk, B., Fineout‐Overholt, E., Miller‐Davis, C., Yates, J., & Hastings, C.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-06
Volume
66
Issue
12
Pages
2761-2771
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2105504642
Cited by
224
References
2
FWCI
20.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Implementing evidence‐based practice: effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05442.x
The paper
Wallen, G. R., Mitchell, S. A., Melnyk, B., Fineout‐Overholt, E., Miller‐Davis, C., Yates, J., & Hastings, C. (2010). Implementing evidence‐based practice: effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05442.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.