A descriptive study of research published in scientific nursing journals from 1985 to 2010

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.03.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Numerous analyses of research published in scientific nursing journals have been examined over the past decades. However, a comprehensive analysis of trends in research has not been reported since 1980.

Objectives

The aim of this analysis was to review randomly selected research articles published in four scientific nursing journals for the years 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 to identify changes in selected aspects of research and to compare the findings with those from an earlier similar study.

Design

This descriptive study used percentages to present trends in published studies in four scientific nursing journals for twenty-five years.

Methods

A total of 976 studies were identified; 50% were randomly selected for each year analyzed. The foci of the research problem, care orientation, conceptual bases, research designs, data analysis procedures, discussion of findings, and recommendations and implications were analyzed.

Results

Most studies from 1985 (66%) through 2010 (73%) focused on nursing practice issues; in 2010 they focused on primary health (46%) and chronicity (41%). A decrease in theory-testing research from 1985 (32%) to 2010 (21%), and in theory-based studies from 1985 (31%) to 2010 (22%) was noted. Qualitative studies increased from 1985 (3%) to 2010 (21%). Psychological variables and adult populations continue to be studied mainly over 25 years. For quantitative studies, there were increases in correlational designs from 1985 (35%) to 2010 (38%), experimental designs from 1985 (16%) to 2010 (18%), and methodological studies from 1985 (5%) to 2010 (24%). There were decreases in descriptive studies from 1985 (20%) to 2010 (5%), and comparative studies from 1985 (19%) to 2010 (10%). The use of multivariate statistics increased over time. In 1985, 61% of researchers did not link their findings to theory guiding the study; 52% did not in 2010. For qualitative research, approximately 50% fell in the “other category” over the 25 years; in 2010, grounded theory (15%), phenomenological (15%) and ethnographic (20%) designs were used.

Conclusions

Trends indicated that the building of science has been slow, incremental, and subtle, as found in the earlier study. Trends suggest a growing maturity in the research designs.

Introduction

In 1984 Brown, Tanner, and Padrick published a seminal study describing the trends in nursing research over three decades, from 1952–1953 to 1980, beginning with the inception of four major scientific journals in nursing: Nursing Research (NR), Research in Nursing & Health (RINAH), Western Journal of Nursing (WJNR), and International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS). Subsequent analyses have attempted to capture the growth of scientific knowledge in the discipline of nursing, the scientific methods used to create this knowledge, and/or their implications for nursing practice (Anderson et al., 2003, Jacobsen and Meininger, 1985, Mantzoukas, 2009, Moody et al., 1988, Polit and Sherman, 1990). While these publications were informative, none built upon the comprehensive work of Brown et al. over the past 25 years, which is the purpose of this descriptive study.

The analyses by Brown et al. (1984) described the characteristics of nursing research, and trends in research published in 1952–1953, 1960, 1970, and 1980 in four nursing research journals. Their analyses revealed that there was: (a) a greater clinical focus in topics studied, (b) a greater theoretical orientation, (c) more correlational than experimental designs, (d) incomplete psychometric data reported on instruments, (e) sample selection using mostly non-probability methods, and (f) data collection using primarily questionnaires and interviews. The limitations noted by Brown et al. were insufficient conceptualization of the research problem and the failure to build a cumulative science. Their analyses provided an excellent foundation upon which to investigate the scientific growth of nursing research over the past 25 years, as done in the present study.

Jacobsen and Meininger (1985) analyzed designs and methods published in NR, RINAH, and WJNR from the years 1956, 1961, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1981, and 1983. Using systematic sampling, 362 research reports were analyzed. Methodological research comprised 11% of the sample, historical research 1%, experimental research 27%, and observational studies 73%. Probability sampling was used in 13% of the studies. This analysis was informative but limited to the methods of research, and is dated.

Moody et al. (1988) analyzed the theoretical and methodological underpinnings and findings of nursing practice research published in 6 scientific journals in nursing from 1977 to 1986. Findings showed that there was an increase in funding, multidiscipline, and multisite research. Theories guiding research were mostly non-nursing. Moody et al. reported that the most frequent design was cross-sectional (56%), followed by quasi-experimental (24%) and true experimental (6%) designs. Multivariate statistics were used less frequently (35%) than bivariate statistics (41%). A majority of researchers used non-probability sampling and did not report compete data on psychometrics of instruments. Moody et al. recommended that greater attention be given to the theory-research link. Their analysis focused on nursing practice research for a ten-year period, and excluded nursing administration and nursing education studies, and thus was relevant but not comprehensive.

Polit and Sherman (1990) analyzed articles published in 1989 in NR and RINAH. They concluded that a majority of nursing studies did not have sufficient power to adequately test research hypotheses because sample sizes were too small. Although yielding important information, this analysis was clearly limited to sample size issues.

The purpose of a study by Anderson et al. (2003) was to examine how research is disseminated through 78 nursing journals and to analyze the characteristics of the research, using the final issues for the journals published in 1999. About 41% of the studies were at least partially funded, and about 45% specified theory guiding the research. About 27% of the studies were qualitative. Reliability and validity were absent in many manuscripts examined, and few researchers (10.2%) used power analysis to determine sample size. This analysis was fairly comprehensive but did not reveal changes or trends in nursing research because it was limited to a one-year period.

Mantzoukas (2009) reviewed the abstracts of all research articles published in the ten nursing journals from 2000 to 2006. He categorized the designs used, the approach to knowledge development (qualitative versus quantitative methods), types of evidence produced, and issues studied (educational, professional, practice, etc.). Most studies were quantitative, empirically rather than theoretically based, and referred to practical–clinical issues. Of the abstracts analyzed, 13% were experimental/quasi-experimental, 39% were non-experimental, 15% were qualitative, 2.5% were meta-analyses/meta-syntheses, 5% were literature reviews, 3% were secondary analyses, 15% were unspecified, and 5.5% were other. Mantzoukas recommended publication of more studies for evidence-based practice. Although fairly current, a limitation of this work is that the analysis was based on abstracts of published works for a relatively short period of time.

The above studies have yielded important information about the state of the science in nursing at their time of publication. Each study used a variety of scientific journals in nursing for their analyses, making comparisons across studies difficult. None of the studies built upon the work of Brown et al. (1984).

The present study was designed to build upon the work of Brown et al. (1984) who analyzed studies published in 1952–1953 and 1960, and randomly selected studies in 1970 and 1980. We analyzed randomly selected substantive studies published in years 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 from the same 4 journals used by Brown et al.

In their study, Brown et al. (1984) raised four questions that they believed essential to address relative to the development of a scientific base for a professional discipline. Because the present study builds on the Brown et al. analyses with comparable aims, similar questions were raised. To capture the entire research process, we also added an analysis of the conceptual-interpretive phase of research to assess the extent to which a body of knowledge is being developed through research. Thus, the questions raised in the present analysis allowed us to make judgments regarding the advancements made in the building of science in nursing research published in four scientific nursing journals over a 25 year period. We also present a preliminary analysis of information that presents a backdrop to this study, such as authorship, funding, and country of origin to assess changes in these areas over time.

The following research questions were used to guide the current analysis from 1985 to 2010 in NR, RINAH, WJNR, and IJNS

  • 1.

    Has the focus of the studies changed in area of interest and care orientation?

  • 2.

    What approach is being used for knowledge development and what is the nature of variables studied?

  • 3.

    What research designs and data analysis procedures have been employed in nursing research for quantitative and qualitative studies and how have they changed over time?

  • 4.

    Is there a discernible effort to build a body of knowledge and to translate this knowledge to practice by researchers conducting these studies?

Section snippets

Coding instrument

In their 1984 study, Brown et al. stated that each article reviewed was analyzed with respect to four major aspects (authorship, major topic of investigation, theoretical orientation, and methods used) but they made no mention of a coding system used for their analyses. An effort was made in the present study to include in our coding scheme similar information presented in the 1984 study by Brown et al.

Prior to data collection, a coding instrument was developed to record relevant information

Results

A preliminary analysis of the randomly selected studies analyzed indicated a marked change over time in authorship from single author (40% in 1985 down to 9% in 2010) to multi-authored publications (60% in 1985 up to 91% in 2010).

There has been a slight but steady increase in funding of published research from 1985 (65%) through 2010 (72%); a majority of the studies were funded over the past 25 years. The number of NIH funded studies increased in 1990 (82%), but this increase was not sustained

Discussion

Relative to the preliminary analysis, the findings regarding the shift towards multi-authored publications is consistent with the trend reported by Brown et al. (1984) away from single authored works to collaborative efforts. This shift in authorship over the years may reflect the demand to publish by faculty in research universities, the efficiency of time and effort in producing research publications by teams, the cross fertilization of ideas that occurs when researchers work together, and/or

Conclusions and recommendations

For the past 25 years, the four nursing journals have primarily published nursing practice studies of adults, focusing currently on mostly primary health and chronic health issues. More studies of acutely ill individuals are needed. There is a paucity of studies on adolescents, children, and infants. Thus, it is recommended that editors of the four nursing research journals analyzed periodically call for studies on populations that tend to be underrepresented in the publication process.

There is

References (24)

  • J.S. Brown et al.

    Nursing's search for scientific knowledge

    Nursing Research

    (1984)
  • CDC, 2010. Chronic disease and health promotion. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/index.htm...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text