You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Nursing issues
Nurses perceived institutional double standards in education and application of evidence-based practice
  1. Vittoria Sorice,
  2. Amy Neal
  1. Emergency Department, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Vittoria Sorice, ED, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Chesterfield S44 5BL, Derbyshire, UK; vittoria.sorice{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2022-103515

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Hines S, Ramsbotham J, Coyer F. The experiences and perceptions of nurses interacting with research literature: a qualitative systematic review to guide evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2021;18:371–8.10.1111/wvn.12542

    Implications for practice and research

    • Lack of resources and availability will directly impact research opportunities unless prioritised in clinical practice.

    • To continue to promote evidence-based practice as the gold standard in healthcare time must be dedicated to developing a sustained research culture within the workforce.

    Context

    Health professionals have consistently advocated and acknowledged the value of clinical research. This represents one of the driving factors in providing patients with evidence-based enhanced care and treatment options. Thence, nurses are required to utilise evidence-based practice (EPB) and possess a certain degree of research literacy. The greater the ability of nurses to comprehend research, the more positive their attitude towards its use in clinical practice will be.1 Hines et al goal in …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @vittoriasor

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.