Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2014 Feb;11(1):55-64. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12013. Epub 2013 Jul 23.
The literature implies research utilization (RU) to be a multifaceted and complex phenomenon, difficult to trace in clinical practice. A deeper understanding of the concept of RU in a nursing context is needed, in particular, for the development of instruments for measuring nurses' RU, which could facilitate the evaluation of interventions to support the implementation of evidence-based practice. In this paper, we explored nurses' demarcation of instrumental RU (IRU), conceptual RU (CRU), and persuasive RU (PRU) using an item pool proposed to measure IRU, CRU, and PRU.
The item pool (12 items) was presented to two samples: one of practicing registered nurses (n = 890) in Sweden 4 years after graduating and one of recognized content experts (n = 7). Correlation analyses and content validity index (CVI) calculations were used together with qualitative content analysis, in a mixed methods design.
According to the item and factor analyses, CRU and PRU could not be distinguished, whereas IRU could. Analyses also revealed problems in linking the CRU items to the external criteria. The CVIs, however, showed excellent or good results for the IRU, CRU, and PRU items as well as at the scale level. The qualitative data indicated that IRU was the least problematic for the experts to categorize, whereas CRU and PRU were harder to demarcate.
Our findings illustrate a difficulty in explicitly demarcating between CRU and PRU in clinical nursing. We suggest this overlap is related to conceptual incoherence, indicating a need for further studies. The findings constitute new knowledge about the RU concepts in a clinical nursing context, and highlight differences in how the concepts can be understood by RNs in clinical practice and experts within the field. We suggest that the findings are useful for defining RU in nursing and further development of measures of RU.
文献表明，研究利用（RU）是一个多方面且复杂的现象，在临床实践中难以追踪。需要更深入地了解护理背景下 RU 的概念，特别是为了开发衡量护士 RU 的工具，这可以促进评估支持实施循证实践的干预措施。在本文中，我们使用拟议用于衡量 IRU、CRU 和 PRU 的项目池，探讨了护士对工具性 RU（IRU）、概念性 RU（CRU）和说服性 RU（PRU）的区分。
项目池（12 个项目）呈现给两个样本：一个是瑞典毕业后 4 年的注册护士（n=890），另一个是公认的内容专家（n=7）。使用相关分析和内容有效性指数（CVI）计算，并结合混合方法设计中的定性内容分析。
根据项目和因素分析，无法区分 CRU 和 PRU，而可以区分 IRU。分析还表明，将 CRU 项目与外部标准联系起来存在问题。然而，CVI 显示，IRU、CRU 和 PRU 项目以及量表水平的结果均为优秀或良好。定性数据表明，IRU 是专家分类最没有问题的，而 CRU 和 PRU 则更难区分。
我们的发现表明，在临床护理中，明确区分 CRU 和 PRU 存在困难。我们认为这种重叠与概念上的不连贯有关，表明需要进一步研究。这些发现构成了临床护理背景下 RU 概念的新知识，并强调了临床护士和该领域专家对这些概念的理解差异。我们建议这些发现对定义护理中的 RU 以及 RU 测量的进一步发展有用。
