CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 208Health Sciences Research and EducationNursing education and managementInnovative Education and Learning Practices

Sources of Practice Knowledge Among Nurses

Estabrooks, Carole A., Rutakumwa, William, O’Leary, Katherine A., Profetto-McGrath, Joanne, Milner, Margaret, Levers, Merry Jo, Scott-Findlay, Shannon·2005·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/1049732304273702
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several studies have been published listing sources of practice knowledge used by nurses. However, the authors located no studies that asked clinicians to describe comprehensively and categorize the kinds of knowledge needed to practice or in which the researchers attempted to understand how clinicians privilege various knowledge sources. In this article, the authors report findings from two large ethnographic case studies in which sources of practice knowledge was a subsidiary theme. They draw on data from individual and card sort interviews, as well as participant observations, to identify nurses’ sources of practice knowledge. Their findings demonstrate that nurses categorize their sources of practice knowledge into four broad groupings: social interactions, experiential knowledge, documents, and a priori knowledge. The insights gained add new understanding about sources of knowledge used by nurses and challenge the disproportionate weight that proponents of the evidence-based movement ascribe to research knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732304273702

Cites

41 of 41 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Estabrooks, C. A., Rutakumwa, W., O’Leary, K. A., Profetto-McGrath, J., Milner, M., Levers, M. J., & Scott-Findlay, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  • Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
ORCID
Estabrooks, Carole A.
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-04
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
460-476
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/1049732304273702
OpenAlex
W2140126361
Cited by
208
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 20
FWCI
23.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
Keywords
nurses, clinical knowledge, social interaction, experiential knowledge, medical documents, a priori knowledge, evidence-based practice, knowledge hierarchies, nursing practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Alberta, Anthropology, Cultural, Humans, Nurses, Ontario, Knowledge, Organizational Case Studies

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