Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 372

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nurses' Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, Skills, and Needs Regarding Evidence‐Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Paradigm Shift

Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek, Fineout‐Overholt, Ellen, Fischbeck Feinstein, Nancy, Li, Hong, Small, Leigh, Wilcox, Larry, Kraus, Rachel·2004·Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing

Abstract

Background: The paradigm shift to evidence‐based nursing practice in the United States has been slow. Although multiple barriers to evidence‐based practice (EBP) have been identified through prior studies, there is a gap in the literature specifically identifying key variables (e.g., belief that EBP produces quality outcomes) that are correlated with the extent to which nurses engage in EBP. Aim: The primary aims of this study were to (1) describe nurses' knowledge, beliefs, skills, and needs regarding EBP; (2) determine whether relationships exist among these variables; and (3) describe major barriers and facilitators to EBP. Methods: A descriptive survey was conducted with a convenience sample of 160 nurses who were attending EBP conferences or workshops in four states located within the Eastern Region of the United States. Results: Although participant beliefs about the benefit of EBP were high, knowledge of EBP was relatively low. Significant relationships were found between the extent to which the nurses' practice is evidence‐based and (1) nurses' knowledge of EBP, (2) nurses' beliefs about the benefits of EBP, (3) having an EBP mentor, and (4) using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Conclusion and Implications: Health care systems need to implement interventions that not only increase nurses' EBP knowledge and skills, but also strengthen their beliefs about the benefit of evidence‐based care. EBP mentors may be key in accelerating a more rapid shift toward evidence‐based nursing practice. Theoretically driven randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to test the effectiveness of interventions on advancing evidence‐based care.

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.1524-475x.2004.04024.x

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

See all 372

Metadata

Authors
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout‐Overholt, E., Fischbeck Feinstein, N., Li, H., Small, L., Wilcox, L., & Kraus, R.
Venue
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-19
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
185-193
ISSN
  • 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6787
OpenAlex
W1994784352
Cited by
372
References
30
FWCI
22.58
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: Nurses' Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, Skills, and Needs Regarding Evidence‐Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Paradigm Shift. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04024.x
The paper
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout‐Overholt, E., Fischbeck Feinstein, N., Li, H., Small, L., Wilcox, L., & Kraus, R. (2004). Nurses' Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, Skills, and Needs Regarding Evidence‐Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Paradigm Shift. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04024.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.