| Literature DB >> 23642173 |
Anne-Marie Boström1, Ann Rudman, Anna Ehrenberg, Jens Petter Gustavsson, Lars Wallin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is emphasized to increase the quality of care and patient safety. EBP is often described as a process consisting of distinct activities including, formulating questions, searching for information, compiling the appraised information, implementing evidence, and evaluating the resulting practice. To increase registered nurses' (RNs') practice of EBP, variables associated with such activities need to be explored. The aim of the study was to examine individual and organizational factors associated with EBP activities among RNs 2 years post graduation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23642173 PMCID: PMC3648399 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-165
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Description of dependent and independent variables tested, response alternatives and their categorization
| Formulate questions to search for research-based knowledge a: | high extent vs. low extent |
| Seek out relevant knowledge using databases b: | high extent vs. low extent |
| Seek out relevant knowledge using other information sources c: | high extent vs. low extent |
| Critically appraise and compile best knowledged: | high extent vs. low extent |
| Participate in implementing research-based knowledge in practice e: | high extent vs. low extent |
| Participate in evaluating whether practice reflects current research-based knowledge f: | high extent vs. low extent |
| The response format for the above six items ranged from 1 “To a very low extent” to 4 “To a very high extent”. High extent consists of 3 and 4 and low extent of 1 and 2. | |
| | |
| | |
| Sex: | female (reference) vs. male |
| Age: | 30 years and older (reference) vs. younger than 30 years |
| Previous training as a nurse aide (before studies): | no (reference) vs. yes |
| Further study after nursing degree: have studied and study now: | no (reference) vs. yes |
| Evidence-based practice capability beliefs: Evidence-based capability was measured by six items a-f following the EBP process (Cronbach’s α = 0.90). The response format ranged from 0 “ | low capability (reference) vs. high capability |
| | |
| Present form of employment: | temporary (reference) vs. permanent |
| Clinical setting: | Hospital (reference) vs. primary care or older people care or psychiatric care |
| Full or part time: | part time (reference) vs. full time |
| Work shifts: | three shifts (day, evening and night) (reference) vs. office hours (Monday – Friday) or two shifts (day and evening) |
| Work overtime: | once per week or less often (reference) vs. several times per week |
| Enough staff compared to patients’ needs: | no (reference) vs. yes |
| Collective efficacyg: Collective efficacy was measured by 3 items (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). The response format ranged from 1 “Yes, I am sure we manage that” to 11 “No, we do not manage that”. High collective efficacy was characterized by a mean value ≤2.49. | low (reference) vs. high |
| Role clarityh: Role clarity was measured using three items (Cronbach’s α = 0.74). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High role clarity was characterized by a mean value ≤2. | low (reference) vs. high |
| Leadershipi: Leadership was measured by six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.90). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High-quality leadership was characterized by a mean value ≤2. | low (reference) vs. high |
| Job demandsj: Job demands were measured using four items (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High job demands were characterized by a mean value ≤2. | low (reference) vs. high |
| Controlk: Control was measured using four items (Cronbach’s α = 0.66). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High control was characterized by a mean value ≤2. | low (reference) vs. high |
| | |
| Disengagement: The disengagement scale consisted of six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The response format ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 4 “totally agree”. High disengagement was characterized by a mean value >3. | low (reference) vs. high |
| Exhaustion: The exhaustion scale consisted of five items (Cronbach’s α = 0.74). The response format ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 4 “totally agree”. High exhaustion was characterized by a mean value >2.5. | low (reference) vs. high |
Legends:
a-f Six items measuring the process of evidence-based practice [18].
g The measure of Collective Professional Efficacy in the LANE survey was constructed by the research group with inspiration from Bandura’s guide for constructing self-efficacy scales [22]. The collective efficacy aims to measure the individual members’ appraisals of the capability of their group operating as a whole [23].
h Role clarity, or role ambiguity, refers to a situation where role expectations are unknown or unclear [24] and originates from the QPSNordic scale that was designed as an instrument for assessing psychological, social and organizational work conditions [25].
i Leadership, the leadership measure in the LANE study, consist of items from the QPSNordic scales, i.e. three dimensions “social support from superiors”, “empowering leadership”, and “fair leadership” are used together, building a scale of leadership and support from superiors [25].
j The job demands items in the QPSNordic measure the individuals’ perceptions and subjective evaluations of work demands, i.e. quantitative demands and decisional demands [24].
k Control at work: the control dimension in the questionnaire refers to objective aspects or perceptions of the situation at work, e.g. the presence of freedom of choice between alternatives [25].
l Symptoms of burnout were measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [26] including the two dimensions exhaustion and disengagement from work. Exhaustion concerns feeling drained of energy and disengagement involves distancing oneself from one’s work, and experiencing negative attitudes towards the work in general.
Reference =1. Number of categories indicated when >2.
Descriptive statistics on dependent and independent variables (n = 987)
| | | ||
| Formulate questions | High extent | 183 | 19 |
| Search databases | High extent | 190 | 19 |
| Search other sources | High extent | 545 | 56 |
| Compile information | High extent | 297 | 31 |
| Implement knowledge | High extent | 296 | 30 |
| Evaluate practice | High extent | 336 | 34 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Sex | Men | 108 | 11 |
| | Women | 874 | 89 |
| Age | Born 1972 or earlier | 430 | 44 |
| | Born 1973 or later | 554 | 56 |
| Previous nurse aide training | Yes | 462 | 47 |
| | No | 516 | 53 |
| Further study after nursing degree | Have studied/Study now | 130 | 13 |
| | No | 845 | 87 |
| EBP capability | High | 619 | 63 |
| | Low | 360 | 37 |
| | | ||
| Present form of employment | Permanent | 566 | 57 |
| | Temporary | 421 | 43 |
| Clinical setting | Hospital | 723 | 74 |
| | Primary care | 42 | 4 |
| | Care of older people | 118 | 12 |
| | Psychiatric care | 101 | 10 |
| Full or part time | Full time | 668 | 68 |
| | Part time | 312 | 32 |
| Work shifts (Three shifts) | Daytime | 114 | 12 |
| | Day and evening shifts (no nights) | 466 | 48 |
| | Three shifts (incl nights) | 395 | 40 |
| Work overtime | Several times per week | 204 | 21 |
| | About once a week or less often | 728 | 79 |
| Enough staff compared to patients’ need for care | Yes | 385 | 39 |
| | No | 598 | 61 |
| Collective efficacy | High | 492 | 50 |
| | Low | 490 | 50 |
| Role clarity | High | 713 | 73 |
| | Low | 269 | 27 |
| Leadership | High | 287 | 29 |
| | Low | 695 | 71 |
| Work demands | High | 307 | 31 |
| | Low | 675 | 69 |
| Control | High | 77 | 8 |
| | Low | 904 | 92 |
| Disengagement | High | 140 | 14 |
| | Low | 841 | 86 |
| Exhaustion | High | 461 | 47 |
| Low | 520 | 53 | |
Logistic regression analysis: odds ratio for higher extent of 1) formulate questions, 2) search databases and 3) search other sources in associated variables categorised as individual and organizational factors
| | | | ∆ 93.7*** | | | | ∆ 53.2*** | | | | ∆ 63.8*** | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Sex | 1.2 (0.7;2.1) | | 1.2 (0.7;2.0) | | 1.0 (0.6;1.7) | | 1.0 (0.6;1.8) | | 1.0 (0.7;1.6) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.7) | |
| Age | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | 1.2 (0.8;1.8) | | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | 1.2 (0.8;1.8) | | 1.0 (0.7;1.3) | | 1.1 (0.8;1.5) | |
| Previous nurse aide training | 1.4 (0.9; 2.0) | | 1.3 (0.9;2.0) | | 1.3 (0.9;1.9) | | 1.3 (0.9;1.8) | | 1.3 (0.9;1.7) | | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | |
| Further study after nursing degree | 1.1 (0.7; 1.8) | | 1.0 (0.6;1.7) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.8) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.8) | | 1.0 (0.6;1.4) | | 1.0 (0.6;1.5) | |
| EBP capability | 8.3 (4.8;14.5) | | 7.3 (4.1;12.9) | | 4.0 (2.6;6.2) | | 3.8 (2.4;5.9) | | 3.0 (2.2;3.9) | | 2.6 (2.0;3.5) | |
| | | | ∆ 30.9* | | | | ∆ 10.7 | | | | ∆ 39.3** | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Present form of employment | | | 1.1(0.8;1.7) | | | | 0.9 (0.6;1.3) | | | | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | |
| Clinical setting | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| • Primary care | | | 0.3 (0.1;1.1) | | | | 1.0 (0.4;2.7) | | | | 1.9 (0.8;4.3) | |
| • Care of older people | | | 1.0 (0.6;1.7) | | | | 1.1 (0.6;1.9) | | | | 1.7 (1.0;2.7) | |
| • Psychiatry care | | | 1.5 (0.8;2.7) | | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.6) | | | | 1.0 (0.6;1.6) | |
| Full or part time | | | 0.7 (0.5;1.1) | | | | 0.7 (0.5;1.1) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | |
| Work shifts (Three shifts) | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| • Office hours | | | 0.9 (0.5;1.7) | | | | 0.8 (0.4;1.4) | | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.4) | |
| • Two shifts | | | 0.8 (0.6;1.3) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.3) | |
| Work overtime | | | 1.2 (0.7;1.9) | | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.8) | | | | 1.5 (1.0;2.1) | |
| Enough staff | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.5) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | | | 0.9 (0.7;1.2) | |
| Collective efficacy | | | 1.3 (0.9;2.0) | | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | | | 1.4 (1.0;1.9) | |
| Role clarity | | | 2.0 (1.2;3.2) | | | | 1.3 (0.9;2.0) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | |
| Leadership | | | 1.3 (0.9;2.0) | | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.8) | | | | 1.5 (1.1;2.1) | |
| Job demands | | | 1.5 (0.9;2.2) | | | | 1.1 (0.8;1.7) | | | | 0.9 (0.7;1.3) | |
| Control | | | 1.2 (0.7;2.2) | | | | 1.2 (0.6;2.1) | | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.5) | |
| Disengagement | | | 0.8 (0.5;1.5) | | | | 1.0 (0.6;1.8) | | | | 0.8 (0.5;1.1) | |
| Exhaustion | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | | | 1.1 (0.8;1.6) | | | | 0.9 (0.7;1.3) | |
| Final model | 93.7*** | 124.7*** | 53.2*** | 63.9*** | 63.8*** | 103.1*** | ||||||
* = p<0.05; *** = p<0.001.
Logistic regression analysis: odds ratio for higher extent of 1) compile information, 2) implement evidence and 3) evaluate practice in associated variables categorised as individual and organizational factors
| | | | ∆ 53.7*** | | | | ∆ 61.7*** | | | | ∆ 91.0*** | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Sex | 1.2 (0.7;1.8) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.8) | | 0.8 (0.5;1.2) | | 0.7 (0.4;1.2) | | 0.9 (0.5;1.4) | | 0.8 (0.5;1.4) | |
| Age | 0.8 (0.6;1.1) | | 0.9 (0.7;1.3) | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | 1.1 (0.8;1.5) | | 1.3 (0.9;1.8) | |
| Previous nurse aide training | 1.1 (0.8;1.5) | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | 1.5 (1.1;2.0) | | 1.3 (0.9;1.8) | | 1.6 (1.2;2.2) | | 1.5 (1.1;2.0) | |
| Further study after nursing degree | 1.1 (0.7;1.6) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.7) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.6) | | 0.9 (0.6;1.5) | | 1.1 (0.7;1.6) | | 1.0 (0.7;1.6) | |
| EBP capability | 3.1 (2.2;4.3) | | 2.7 (1.9;3.8) | | 3.2 (2.3;4.5) | | 2.6 (1.8;3.7) | | 4.1 (3.0;5.8) | | 3.4 (2.4;4.8) | |
| | | | ∆ 27.7* | | | | ∆ 83.8*** | | | | ∆ 57.9*** | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Present form of employment | | | 1.0 (0.8;1.4) | | | | 1.2 (0.9;1.7) | | | | 1.0 (0.8;1.4) | |
| Clinical setting | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| • Primary care | | | 1.6 (0.7;3.5) | | | | 0.7 (0.3;1.8) | | | | 0.6 (0.3;1.6) | |
| • Care of older people | | | 2.1 (1.3;3.3) | | | | 2.0 (1.2;3.2) | | | | 2.2 (1.4;3.6) | |
| • Psychiatry care | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.4) | | | | 2.4 (1.4;4.0) | | | | 1.6 (0.9;2.7) | |
| Full or part time | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | | | 1.4 (0.9;1.9) | | | | 1.3 (0.9;1.8) | |
| Work shifts (Three shifts) | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| • Office hours | | | 1.0 (0.6;1.8) | | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.4) | | | | 1.0 (0.6;1.8) | |
| • Two shifts | | | 0.8 (0.6;1.2) | | | | 1.1 (0.8;1.6) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | |
| Work overtime | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.8) | | | | 1.5 (0.9;2.2) | | | | 1.1 (0.7:1.6) | |
| Enough staff | | | 0.9 (0.6;1.3) | | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.6) | | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | |
| Collective efficacy | | | 1.1(0.8;1.5) | | | | 1.7 (1.2;2.4) | | | | 1.7 (1.2;2.3) | |
| Role clarity | | | 1.0 (0.7;1.4) | | | | 0.9 (0.6;1.4) | | | | 1.1 (0.7;1.5) | |
| Leadership | | | 1.1 (0.8;1.5) | | | | 2.0 (1.4;2.8) | | | | 1.6 (1.2;2.3) | |
| Job demands | | | 1.2 (0.8;1.7) | | | | 1.5 (1.1;2.2) | | | | 1.6 (1.2;2.3) | |
| Control | | | 1.9 (1.1;3.2) | | | | 1.4 (0.8;2.5) | | | | 1.3 (0.7;2.3) | |
| Disengagement | | | 0.9 (0.6;1.5) | | | | 0.6 (0.4;1.1) | | | | 0.7 (0.4;1.1) | |
| Exhaustion | | | 1.2 (0.9;1.6) | | | | 0.8 (0.6;1.1) | | | | 1.0 (0.8;1.4) | |
| Final model | 53.7*** | 81.3*** | 61.7*** | 145.6*** | 91.0*** | 148.9*** | ||||||
* = p<0.05; *** = p<0.001.