Background
Methods
Selection criteria for studies
Types of study
Type of participant, characteristic, and outcome
Search strategy for identification of studies
Study identification and quality assessment
Data extraction and analysis
Individual Determinant | First Author | Significance* | Direction and Magnitude | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES
| ||||
Perceived support for research | Butler [71] | NS | ||
Attitude toward research | Champion [50] | S | + (r = .55) | |
Estabrooks [31] | S | + LISREL | Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, belief suspension and in-services | |
Hatcher [52] | S | + (r = .65 - .82) | ||
Lacey [54] | S | + (r = .674) | ||
Prin [56] | S | + (r = .58) | ||
Tranmer [57] | S | + (β = .64) | ||
Varcoe [61] | S | + (r = .41) | S for general research use (RUQ); NS for specific practices | |
Wells [72] | S | + (β = 1.62) | ||
Expectation of self to use research | Varcoe [61] | S | + (r = .51) | With general use of research (not specific findings) |
Expressed interest in research | Varcoe [61] | S | + (r = .50) | With general use of research (not specific findings) |
Problem solving ability | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Cosmopoliteness | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Estabrooks [31] | NS | |||
Autonomy | Forbes [62] | S | + (r = 0.08) | |
McCloskey [33] | S |
+ ( β = 0.135) | ||
Dogmatism | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Activism | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Belief suspension | Estabrooks [31] | S | + (LISREL) | Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, in-services, belief suspension |
Theoretical orientation | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Trust | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Confidence | Wells [72] | NS | Confidence in research related activities (e.g., reading research, discussing research) | |
Career commitment | Stiefel [60] | S | + (R2 = 0.13) | MANOVA |
Perception of nurse as a RU barrier | Bostrom [51] | S | + (t = 2.512) | Research user reports less individual barriers |
Awareness (overall) of practice | Squires [14] | S | + (β = 2.52) | For 'user of research' |
Awareness of practice by regular use | Squires [14] | S | + (β = 3.49) | For 'user of research' |
Research awareness | Wells [72] | NS | ||
Persuaded (believe in) of the practice | Squires [14] | S | + (β = 2.11) | For 'user of research' |
2. INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
| ||||
Current data collection for others | Butler [71] | S | + (OR = 4.04) | |
Participation in research-related activities | Berggren [46] | NS | ||
McCleary [29] | S | + | Test statistic not given | |
Participation in research as subject | Hatcher [52] | NS | ||
Past use of research | Butler [71] | S | + OR = 20.0 | |
Job related research activities | Rutledge [49] | S | + (r = .0673 to .1272) | S for 3 of 8 practices |
Participation in research study | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Nash [55] | NS | |||
Education for research participation | Logsdon [77] | S | + (r = .32) | |
Research participation | Tsai [74] | S | + (r = .3268) | |
Involvement in research projects | Tranmer [57] | NS | ||
Research experience | Varcoe [61] | S | + (r = .37) | With general use of research (not specific findings) |
Participation in quality management | McCleary [29] | S | + | Test statistic not given |
Participation in quality improvement | Wallin [58] | S | + (X
2 = 11.1) | |
Completion of the research study | Tsai [75] | NS | ||
3. INFORMATION SEEKING
| ||||
Nursing texts as information | Barta [45] | NS | ||
Nursing journals as information \ | Barta [45] | S | + (t = -2.36) | |
Education by specialty groups | Barta [45] | NS | ||
Personal experience as information | Squires [14] | S | + (β = 0.55) | For 'consistent research user' |
P&P manual as information | Squires [14] | NS | ||
In-services as a source of knowledge | Squires [14] | NS | ||
Attended education program | Berggren [46] | NS | ||
Critical reading skills | Tranmer [57] | S | + (β = 0.19) | Pre-test & Post-test respondents combined |
Use computer | Wallin [69] | S | + (β = 0.142) | |
Time per week on the internet | Wallin [69] | NS | ||
Internet use | Cummings [68] | NS | ||
Have a personal computer | Wallin [69] | NS | ||
Reading activities Read journals | ||||
Berggren [46] | NS | |||
Hours reading journals | Brett [44] | S | + (r = .163) | |
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
Michel [48] | NS | |||
Number of journals read | Rodgers [12] | S | + (Z = 2.98) | |
Rutledge [49] | S | + (r = .0901) | 1 of 8 practices | |
Wells [72] | NS | |||
Reads Heart & Lung
| Coyle [47] | S | + (X
2 = 3.795) | |
Michel [48] | S | + Mann Whitney U = 1422.0 | ||
Reads Nursing Research
| Brett [44] | S | + (X
2 = 12.422) | |
Michel [48] | NS | |||
Reads RN
| Brett [44] | S | + (X
2 = 8.925) | |
Attendance at conferences/in-services | Butler [71] | NS | ||
Coyle [47] | S | + (X
2 = 5.179) | To total TIAB score | |
Estabrooks [31] | S | + (LISREL) | Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, belief suspension and in-services | |
Michel [48] | S | + Mann Whitney U = 1291.5 | ||
Rutledge [49] | S | + (r = .1168) | All 8 practices combined | |
Hours of continuing education | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
Number of study days attended | Rodgers [12] | S | + (r = .095) | |
Time spent studying (on duty) | Rodgers [12] | NS | ||
Time spent studying (off duty) | Rodgers [12] | S | + (r = .1) | |
MEDLINE usage | Prin [56] | S | + (r = .2526) | |
4. EDUCATION
| ||||
Increasing levels (multiple levels: diploma, bachelors, masters, PhD; post-hoc analysis not provided) | Brett [44] | NS | Diploma, Bachelors, Masters | |
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
Lacey [54] | S | + (r = .554) | ||
Logsdon [77] | S | + (X
2 = 7.99) | Willingness to use research to change practice | |
Nash [55] | NS | |||
Rodgers [12] | S | + (rho = .12) | ||
Rutledge [49] | S | - All Practices r = -.1205, 3 of 8 practices (.0666-.1158) | Diploma/associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate Suggested in article to be spurious due to multiple tests | |
Type of degree | Berggren [46] | NS | Diploma, Degree | |
Brown [70] | S | + (X
2 = 36.1) | Without bachelor's vs. with bachelors vs. graduate degree. | |
Bonner [59] | S | + (H = 11.16) Kruskal wallis | Masters degree versus lower | |
Butler [71] | S | + (OR = 1.75) | Diploma, Bachelors degree (higher for degree) | |
Champion [50] | NS | Graduate compared to basic education (BN) | ||
Erler [46] | NS | For using lit searches in practice and in policies, Diploma versus degree | ||
Estabrooks [31] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
Forbes [62] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
McCleary [29] | S | + (F = 8.8) | Bachelors vs. community college & graduate vs. community college | |
McCloskey [33.34] | S | + (F = 11.34) | Diploma, Bachelors, Masters | |
Michel [48] | S | + (U = 2345.0) | BSN, MSN | |
Ofi [73] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
Squires [14] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
Stiefel [60] | NS | Bachelors, Graduate degree | ||
Tranmer [57] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
Varcoe [61] | NS | Diploma, Degree | ||
Wallin [69] | S | + (r = 0.229) | Diploma, Degree | |
Working toward a degree | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
Current enrolment | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Well prepared in education process | Logsdon [77] | S | + (r = .32) | With willingness to change ones practice based on research |
Number of degrees | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Courses attended | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Completion of research class(es) | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
McCleary [30] | S | + (t = 2.9) | ||
Nash [55] | NS | |||
Rodgers [12] | S | + (Mann Whitney U = 4.44) | ||
Completion of statistics course | Butler [71] | NS | ||
Completion of research design course | McCleary [29] | S | + (t = 3.9) | |
McCleary [30] | S | + (t = 3.5) | ||
Number of statistics courses taken | Wells [72] | S | + (β = 0.48) | |
Years since basic education | Brett [44] | NS | ||
Years since last degree | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Taught a topic based on research | Rodgers [12] | S | + (Mann Whitney U = 4.93) | |
Having project 2000 training | Parahoo [35] | NS | ||
5. PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
| ||||
Full or part-time status | Butler [71] | NS | ||
Wallin [69] | S | + (β = 0.228) | For work full time | |
Years employed as an RN | Butler [71] | NS | ||
Champion [50] | NS | |||
Coyle [47] | NS | |||
Estabrooks [31] | NS | |||
McCleary [29] | NS | |||
McCloskey [34] | NS | |||
Michel [48] | NS | |||
Rodgers [12] | NS | |||
Squires [14] | S | + (β = 0.07) | For 'consistent research user' | |
Stiefel [60] | S | + (r = .22) | ||
Tranmer [57] | NS | |||
Wallin [69] | NS | |||
Years in post (hospital) | Tranmer [57] | NS | ||
Current role | Berggren [46] | NS | Staff midwife or midwifery sister | |
Bonner [59] | S | + Kruskal Wallis (H = 12.67) | Nurse unit managers and consultant report more use than staff nurses | |
Butler [71] | S | + (OR = 5.01) | Those in leadership or advanced roles report more use than staff nurses | |
Connor [66] | NS | |||
Hatcher [52] | S | + (t = 5.57) | Those in leadership of advanced roles report more use as compared to staff nurses | |
S | + (F = 7.901) | Management position or advanced practice nurses vs. staff nurses | ||
Rodgers [12] | NS | Charge nurse vs. staff nurse | ||
Wallin [69] | S | - (β = -0.395) | Staff nurse versus other (staff nurses use less research) | |
Wells [72] | NS | Staff nurse, nurse manager | ||
Clinical specialty | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Michel [48] | NS | |||
Forbes [62] | S | + ANOVA (F = 5.370 | Higher RU for critical care nurses as compared to medical/surgical or obstetrical/gynecological | |
Humphris [53] | S | + X
2 (test value not reported) | Greater number of diabetic nurse specialists implement specific findings into practice as compared to the non-nurse specialist group | |
Nash [55] | S | + ANOVA (F = 2.35) | Area worked (highest RU mean to lowest): Education, other, hospital inpatient, outpatient clinic, office | |
Parahoo [36] | S | + (X
2 = 3.79) | Medical vs. surgical nurses | |
Squires [14] | S | - (β = -0.42) | Med-surg compared to critical care unit (med-surg use less than CC) | |
Stiefel [60] | S | + (Wilk's lambda = 0.76, F = 2.23) | Critical care higher RU than medicine, surgery, oncology | |
Wright [78] | NS | Analyzed groups by practice area (general hospital, psychiatric hospital, or community mental health) | ||
Number of memberships held | Coyle [47] | NS | ||
Oncology nursing society status | Rutledge [49] | S | - 2 of 8 practices (-.068, -.080) | |
Oncology certification | Rutledge [49] | NS | ||
CFRN certification | Erler [76] | S | + (X
2 = 9.6 - use research literature); (x
2 = 11.2 - translate findings into policies and procedures) | |
Job satisfaction | Coyle [47] | S | + (r = .18) | |
Estabrooks [31] | NS | |||
Berggren [46] | NS | |||
Forbes [62] | S | + (r = 0.13) | ||
Wallin [69] | S | + (β = 0.264) | ||
Emotional exhaustion | Cummings [68] | S | - (magnitude varied by context) | Coefficients significant but model not. High context estimated effect = -.109; partially high context estimated effect = -.191; partially low context estimated effect = -.334; low context estimated effect = -.251 |
Stress | Forbes [62] | S | - (r = -0.13) | Personal job stress: Juggling expectations of other professionals and of clients |
Forbes [62] | S | - (r = -0.08) | Situational job stress: Issues such as equipment, time, and staffing | |
Affiliation | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Dependant care hours | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Hours/week worked | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Wallin [69] | NS | |||
Shift usually worked | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Shift satisfaction | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
National certification | Stiefel [60] | NS | ||
6. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
| ||||
Age | Berggren [46] | NS | ||
Butler [71] | NS | |||
Champion [50] | NS | |||
Cummings [68] | NS | |||
Estabrooks [31] | NS | |||
Lacey [54] | NS | |||
McCleary [29] | NS | |||
Rodgers [12] | NS | |||
Wallin [69] | NS | |||
Married or partnered/Marital status | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Family income | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Health/lifestyle activity | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Gender | Estabrooks [31] | NS | ||
Stiefel [60] | NS | |||
Wallin [69] | NS |
Individual Determinant | First Author | Significance* (Direction and magnitude) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Instrumental Research Utilization | Conceptual Research Utilization | Persuasive Research Utilization | Overall Research Utilization | ||
1. BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES
| |||||
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | S + (β = 0.234) | |
Attitude toward research | Estabrooks [32] | Canadian - S + (OR = 1.17) US Military - NS |
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
| Canadian - S + (OR = 1.21) US Military - S + (OR = 1.16) |
Kenny [63] | S + (β not reported) | NS | NS | NS | |
Milner [67] | S + (β = 0.120) | NS | S + (β = 0.075) | S + (β = 0.098) | |
Importance of access to research | Kenny [63] | NS | NS | S + (β not reported) | NS |
Cosmopoliteness | Milner [67] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Localite (orientation within one's immediate social context) | Milner [67] | NS | S + (β = 0.031) | NS | NS |
Interest or organizational groups belonged to | Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | S + (β not reported) |
Adoptiveness | Milner [67] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Belief suspension | Estabrooks [32] | Canadian - NS US Military - S + (OR = 1.11) |
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
| Canadian - S + (OR = 1.07) US Military - S + (OR = 1.08) |
Kenny [63] | S + (β not reported) | NS | NS | NS | |
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Trust | Estabrooks [32] | NS |
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
| Canadian - NS US Military - S + (OR = 1.12) |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | S + (β not reported) | NS | |
Research awareness | Milner [67] | S + (β = 0.037) | NS | S + (β = 0.076) | S + (β = 0.063) |
Importance of various factors to decision-making | Kenny [63] | NS | S + (β not reported) | S + (β not reported) | NS |
2. INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
| |||||
Research involvement | Milner [67] | S + (β = 0.142) | NS | S + (β = 0.170) | S + (β = 0.176) |
3. INFORMATION SEEKING
| |||||
Number of nursing journals read | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Sources of knowledge | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Estabrooks [32] | NS |
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
| NS | |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Mass media | Milner [67] | NS | NS | S + (β = 0.194) | NS |
Number of journals read | Kenny [63] | S + (β not reported) | NS | NS | NS |
Number of continuing education sessions | Connor [66] | NS | S + (β not reported) | S + (β not reported) | S + (β not reported) |
In-services attended | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Estabrooks [32] | NS |
Not Assessed
|
Not Assessed
| Canadian - S + (OR = 1.03) US Military - NS | |
4. EDUCATION
| |||||
Increasing levels | Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Type of degree | Estabrooks [32] | NS |
Not Assessed
|
Not Assessed
| NS |
Possessing a degree | Milner [67] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
5. PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
| |||||
Years employed as an RN | Estabrooks [32] | Canadian - NS US military - S + (OR = 0.97) |
Not Assessed
|
Not Assessed
| NS |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Length of time at job title | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Years in post (hospital) | Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Current role | Milner [67]1
| NS | NS | NS | S - (β = -0.265) |
Milner [67]2
| NS | S - (β = -0.382) | S - (β = -0.345) | NS | |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Kenny [63] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Number of memberships held | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
6. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
| |||||
Age | Milner [67] | NS | NS | NS | S - (β = -0.011) |
Profetto-McGrath [64] | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Gender | Connor [66] | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Estabrooks [32] | NS |
Not assessed
|
Not Assessed
| NS | |
7. CRITICAL THINKING
| |||||
Critical thinking skills (total CCTDI score) | Profetto-McGrath [64] | S + (r = .240 | S + (r = .27) | S + (r = .17) | S + (r = .35) |
Profetto-McGrath [65] | S + (r = .222) | S + (r = .205) | S + (r = .237) | S + (r = .146) |
Results
Description of studies
Methodological quality of included studies
The outcome: individual characteristics and research utilization
Research utilization in general
Beliefs and attitudes
Involvement in research activities
Information-seeking
Education
Professional characteristics
Socio-demographic and socio-economic factors
Kinds of research utilization
Discussion
Comparison with previous review
Category | Individual Characteristic | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|
Previous Review (Estabrooks et al ., 2003 | Review Update | ||
Beliefs and Attitudes | Attitude towards research | Positive attitude associated with more research use | Positive attitude associated with more research use (in general and with instrumental and overall research utilization) |
All other determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies | |
Involvement in Research Activities | Variety of determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies |
Reading practices | Equivocal | Equivocal | |
Information Seeking | Attending conferences/in-services | No conclusion - Too few studies |
Conference and/or in-service attendance associated with more research use
|
All other determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies | |
Education | Type of Degree | Equivocal |
Bachelors versus diploma - no effect on research use
|
Graduate versus bachelors/diploma - increased research use for graduate degree
| |||
Completion of research classes | No conclusion - Too few studies |
No association with research use
| |
All other determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies | |
Professional Characteristics | Years as an RN | No association with research use | No association with research use |
Current role | Leadership role associated with more research use | Leadership role associated with more research use | |
Clinical specialty | No association with research use |
Working in critical care areas (compared to general wards) associated with more research use
| |
Job satisfaction | No conclusion - Too few studies |
Higher levels of job satisfaction associated with more research use
| |
All other determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies | |
Socio-Demographic and Socio-Economic Factors | Age | No association with research use | No association with research use |
All other determinants | No conclusion - Too few studies | No conclusion - Too few studies |