Hines Sonia, Ramsbotham Joanne, Coyer Fiona
1. Nursing Research Centre; Queensland Centre for Evidence-based Nursing and Midwifery: a Collaborating Centre of the Joanna Briggs Institute, South Brisbane, Australia.2. School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Kelvin Grove, Australia.3. Metro North Hospital Health Service, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Australia.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):256-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2378.
Despite the importance of research literacy for nurses, many nurses report feeling unable to effectively read and understand research, which in turn results in lower research utilization in practice. Nurses themselves identify poor experiences with trying to understand and use research as factors that contribute to a reluctance to utilize research. This reluctance often leads nurses to seek other sources of information, such as colleagues, instead.
The objective of this review was to identify the effectiveness of research literacy interventions on the research literacy of registered nurses.
Registered nurses.Interventions of interest were those that evaluated the effectiveness of workplace educational programs or interventions conducted in a healthcare organization or tertiary-level educational facility aiming to improve or increase registered nurses' understanding of research literature.Outcomes of interest were research literacy, measured explicitly or as research knowledge, research understanding, use of research evidence in practice, and/or ability to critically appraise research.We considered experimental study designs such as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and before and after studies.
A wide range of databases were searched in order to provide the most complete possible review of the evidence. Initial keywords used were: "research litera*", "research education", "research knowledge", "evidence-based practice education".
Papers selected for retrieval were assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI).
Data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI.
Quantitative data would have been, if possible, pooled in statistical meta-analysis using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.2 software. As statistical pooling was not possible, the findings are presented in narrative form including tables and figures where appropriate to aid in data presentation.
The majority of included studies were single-group pre-test/post-test designs (n=7). One was a post-test only two-group comparison and two were two-group quasi-experimental studies. Included studies were conducted in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, United Kingdom and United States. The total number of registered nurses in the included studies was 453. The educational interventions were conducted in universities (n=6) and healthcare facilities (n=4). Most included studies were published (n=9), with one unpublished study.
The evidence on educational interventions, while not strong, is indicative of the types of interventions which are likely to be effective. Online or face-to-face interventions using interactive teaching strategies, such as activities, role-play and discussions, and which are underpinned by an appropriate behavioral or education theory, are likely to increase research literacy.
More rigorous experimental studies of educational interventions for nurses' research literacy are warranted, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of different course and program designs. Future studies should consider longer periods of follow-up to test the longevity of the effect, as education needs to have lasting effects to be beneficial to the recipients.
尽管研究素养对护士很重要,但许多护士表示难以有效地阅读和理解研究内容,这进而导致实践中研究成果的利用率较低。护士自身认为,在试图理解和运用研究方面的糟糕体验是导致不愿利用研究成果的因素。这种不情愿往往使护士转而寻求其他信息来源,比如同事。
本综述的目的是确定研究素养干预措施对注册护士研究素养的有效性。
注册护士。感兴趣的干预措施是那些评估在医疗保健机构或高等教育机构开展的工作场所教育项目或干预措施的有效性的措施,旨在提高或增强注册护士对研究文献的理解。感兴趣的结果是研究素养,以明确测量或作为研究知识、研究理解、在实践中运用研究证据和/或批判性评价研究的能力来衡量。我们考虑了实验性研究设计,如随机对照试验、非随机对照试验、准实验以及前后对照研究。
检索了广泛的数据库,以便尽可能全面地综述证据。最初使用的关键词是:“研究素养*”、“研究教育”、“研究知识”、“循证实践教育”。
在纳入综述之前,由两名独立评审员使用乔安娜·布里格斯循证卫生保健中心统计评估与综述工具(JBI-MAStARI)的标准化批判性评价工具,对选定用于检索的论文进行方法学有效性评估。
使用JBI-MAStARI的标准化数据提取工具从纳入综述的论文中提取数据。
如果可能,定量数据将使用Cochrane协作网的Review Manager 5.2软件进行统计荟萃分析合并。由于无法进行统计合并,研究结果以叙述形式呈现,酌情包括表格和图表以辅助数据呈现。
纳入的大多数研究是单组预测试/后测试设计(n = 7)。一项是仅后测试的两组比较,两项是两组准实验研究。纳入的研究在台湾、日本、香港、澳大利亚、英国和美国进行。纳入研究中的注册护士总数为453名。教育干预在大学(n = 6)和医疗保健机构(n = 4)进行。大多数纳入研究已发表(n = 9),一项未发表。
关于教育干预的证据虽然不充分,但表明了可能有效的干预类型。采用互动教学策略(如活动、角色扮演和讨论)且有适当行为或教育理论支撑的在线或面对面干预,可能会提高研究素养。
有必要对护士研究素养的教育干预进行更严格的实验研究,以证明不同课程和项目设计的有效性。未来的研究应考虑更长时间的随访,以测试效果的持久性,因为教育需要产生持久影响才能使接受者受益。