• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

促进变革,赋予教师权力:对 NURSLITT 研究和五年规则的评论。

Fostering change, empowering faculty: comments on the NURSLITT study and the five-year rule.

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 1;112(2):164-168. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1768. Epub 2024 May 22.

DOI:10.5195/jmla.2024.1768
PMID:39119160
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11305472/
Abstract

The five-year rule must die. Despite an extensive literature search, the origins of the five-year rule remain unknown. In an era when the nursing profession is so focused on evidence-based practice, any approach that arbitrarily limits literature searches to articles published in the previous five years lacks scientific basis. We explore some reasons for the pervasiveness of the practice and suggest that librarians need to engage with nursing faculty, who are well-positioned to be change agents in this practice.

摘要

五年规则必须废除。尽管进行了广泛的文献检索,但五年规则的起源仍不清楚。在护理行业如此专注于循证实践的时代,任何将文献检索仅限于前五年发表的文章的方法都缺乏科学依据。我们探讨了这种做法普遍存在的一些原因,并认为图书馆员需要与护理教师合作,他们在这种做法中处于变革推动者的有利地位。

相似文献

1
Fostering change, empowering faculty: comments on the NURSLITT study and the five-year rule.促进变革,赋予教师权力:对 NURSLITT 研究和五年规则的评论。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2024 Apr 1;112(2):164-168. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1768. Epub 2024 May 22.
2
Exploring the Use of Common Strict Search Criteria in Nursing Literature Searches.探索在护理文献检索中使用常见严格搜索标准。
Nurse Educ. 2023;48(4):182-186. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001353. Epub 2022 Dec 30.
3
The librarian as a partner in nursing education.图书馆员作为护理教育的合作伙伴。
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1995 Oct;83(4):499-502.
4
Hospital-Based Research Internship for Nurses: The Value of Academic Librarians as Cofaculty.护士医院实习研究:学术图书馆员作为联合教员的价值。
J Nurses Prof Dev. 2019 Nov/Dec;35(6):344-350. doi: 10.1097/NND.0000000000000585.
5
The academic librarian as co-investigator on an interprofessional primary research team: a case study.学术图书馆员作为跨专业初级研究团队的共同研究者:一项案例研究
Health Info Libr J. 2014 Jun;31(2):116-22. doi: 10.1111/hir.12063. Epub 2014 Jun 25.
6
Psychological empowerment and use of empowering teaching behaviors among baccalaureate nursing faculty.
J Nurs Educ. 2007 Dec;46(12):537-44. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20071201-03.
7
An Embedded Librarian Program: Eight Years On.嵌入式馆员计划:八年回顾
Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Oct-Dec;35(4):388-96. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2016.1220756.
8
Using a Reflexive Process to Investigate Organizational Change: The Use of the Research Spider Matrix.运用反思性过程来探究组织变革:研究蜘蛛矩阵的应用
Med Ref Serv Q. 2019 Oct-Dec;38(4):312-325. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1657724.
9
Building a Bridge: A Review of Information Literacy in Nursing Education.搭建桥梁:护理学教育信息素养述评。
J Nurs Educ. 2021 Aug;60(8):431-436. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20210722-03. Epub 2021 Aug 1.
10
Evidence-based practice and the developing world.循证实践与发展中世界
Health Info Libr J. 2008 Mar;25(1):74-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00759.x.

本文引用的文献

1
Exploring the Use of Common Strict Search Criteria in Nursing Literature Searches.探索在护理文献检索中使用常见严格搜索标准。
Nurse Educ. 2023;48(4):182-186. doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001353. Epub 2022 Dec 30.
2
Research capacity in nursing: a concept analysis based on a scoping review.护理研究能力:基于范围综述的概念分析。
BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 21;9(11):e032356. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032356.
3
The Evolution of Nursing Research.护理研究的发展
J Neuromusculoskelet Syst. 2000 Spring;8(1):10-15.
4
Job satisfaction among hospital nurses: A literature review.医院护士工作满意度的文献综述
Int J Nurs Stud. 2019 Jun;94:21-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.011. Epub 2019 Feb 10.
5
A Qualitative Description of Nurses' Experiences With Incorporating Research Into Practice.护士将研究融入实践的经历的质性描述。
J Contin Educ Nurs. 2018 Jul 1;49(7):299-306. doi: 10.3928/00220124-20180613-05.
6
Interventions for improving the research literacy of nurses: a systematic review.提高护士研究素养的干预措施:一项系统综述
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Feb;14(2):256-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2378.
7
The Effectiveness of Interventions for Improving the Research Literacy of Nurses: A Systematic Review.提高护士研究素养的干预措施的有效性:一项系统综述。
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2015 Oct;12(5):265-72. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12106. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
8
Nurses' information appraisal within the clinical setting.护士在临床环境中的信息评估。
Comput Inform Nurs. 2013 Apr;31(4):167-75; quiz 176-7. doi: 10.1097/NXN.0b013e3182812ef6.
9
Part III. Reenvisioning undergraduate nursing students as opinion leaders to diffuse evidence-based practice in clinical settings.第三部分. 将本科护生重新定位为意见领袖,以在临床环境中传播基于证据的实践。
J Prof Nurs. 2010 Jan;26(1):23-8. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.03.002.
10
A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability.用于测试效度和信度的心理测量工具箱。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x.