Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The BARRIERS scale -- the barriers to research utilization scale: A systematic review

  • Kerstin Nilsson Kajermo1,
  • Anne-Marie Boström2, 3Email author,
  • David S Thompson4,
  • Alison M Hutchinson5,
  • Carole A Estabrooks2 and
  • Lars Wallin1, 3
Implementation Science20105:32

DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-32

Received: 20 July 2009

Accepted: 26 April 2010

Published: 26 April 2010

Abstract

Background

A commonly recommended strategy for increasing research use in clinical practice is to identify barriers to change and then tailor interventions to overcome the identified barriers. In nursing, the BARRIERS scale has been used extensively to identify barriers to research utilization.

Aim and objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the state of knowledge resulting from use of the BARRIERS scale and to make recommendations about future use of the scale. The following objectives were addressed: To examine how the scale has been modified, to examine its psychometric properties, to determine the main barriers (and whether they varied over time and geographic locations), and to identify associations between nurses' reported barriers and reported research use.

Methods

Medline (1991 to September 2009) and CINHAL (1991 to September 2009) were searched for published research, and ProQuest® digital dissertations were searched for unpublished dissertations using the BARRIERS scale. Inclusion criteria were: studies using the BARRIERS scale in its entirety and where the sample was nurses. Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.

Results

Sixty-three studies were included, with most using a cross-sectional design. Not one study used the scale for tailoring interventions to overcome identified barriers. The main barriers reported were related to the setting, and the presentation of research findings. Overall, identified barriers were consistent over time and across geographic locations, despite varying sample size, response rate, study setting, and assessment of study quality. Few studies reported associations between reported research use and perceptions of barriers to research utilization.

Conclusions

The BARRIERS scale is a nonspecific tool for identifying general barriers to research utilization. The scale is reliable as reflected in assessments of internal consistency. The validity of the scale, however, is doubtful. There is no evidence that it is a useful tool for planning implementation interventions. We recommend that no further descriptive studies using the BARRIERS scale be undertaken. Barriers need to be measured specific to the particular context of implementation and the intended evidence to be implemented.

Background

The call to provide evidence-based nursing care is based on the assumption that integrating research findings into clinical practice will increase the quality of healthcare and improve patient outcomes. Reports of the degree to which nurses base their practice on research have been discouraging [112]. Despite efforts to increase research use, translating research findings into clinical practice and ensuring they are implemented and sustained remains a challenge. A strategy commonly recommended for bridging the gap between research and practice is to identify barriers to practice change [13, 14] and then implement strategies that account for identified barriers. Typically, barriers are context-dependent; therefore, implementation strategies should be tailored according to the context and the specific barriers identified [15]. Some evidence supports this approach, although little is known about which barriers are valid, how these barriers should be identified, or what interventions are effective for overcoming specific barriers.

In nursing, the BARRIERS scale, developed by Funk et al. and published in 1991 [16], has been used extensively to identify barriers to research use. Investigators have used this instrument since then, compiling a corpus of research findings that documents barriers to research use across continents, time, and study settings. This sustained research effort presents a unique opportunity to examine trends in the results.

The BARRIERS scale

Funk et al. developed the BARRIERS scale to assess clinicians', administrators', and academicians' perceptions of barriers to the use of research findings in practice [16]. Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they perceive each statement (item) as a barrier to the use of research findings. Items are rated on a four-point scale (1 = to no extent, 2 = to a little extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, 4 = to a great extent); respondents can also choose a no opinion alternative. In addition to rating the barrier items, respondents are invited to add and score other possible barriers, to rank the three greatest barriers, and to list factors they perceive as facilitators of research utilization. The scale items were developed from literature on research utilization, the Conduct and Utilization of Research in Nursing (CURN) project questionnaire [17], and data gathered from nurses. Potential items were assessed by a group of experts. Items demonstrating face and content validity were retained and then pilot-tested. This led to minor rewording of some items and the inclusion of two additional items, resulting in a scale consisting of 29 items representing potential barriers to research utilization [16].

In the psychometric study by Funk et al., 1,989 nurses representing five educational strata responded to the scale (response rate 40%) [16]. Exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation) was performed to investigate underlying dimensionality of the scale. The sample was divided in two subsamples, and the analyses were performed on the two halves. The two subsamples produced similar four-factor solutions with 28 items with loadings of 0.40 or greater on one factor. One item (namely, the amount of research is overwhelming) did not load distinctly on any of the factors and was subsequently removed from the scale. Finally, a factor analysis was performed on the entire sample, resulting in the same four-factor solution. Thus, the final scale consisted of 28 items. Funk et al. reported a four-factor solution and considered these four factors, or subscales, to be congruent with the factors in Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory [18]. The subscales were labeled: the characteristics of the adopter, such as the nurse's research values, skills, and awareness (eight items); the characteristics of the organization, such as setting barriers and limitations (eight items); the characteristics of the innovation, such as qualities of the research (six items); and the characteristics of the communication, such as presentation and accessibility of the research (six items) (Table 1). Consistent with Funk et al.[16, 19, 20], we refer to the individual subscales as the nurse, setting, research, and presentation subscales. In Funk's psychometric article, Cronbach's alpha values for the four subscales were 0.80, 0.80, 0.72, and 0.65, respectively [16]. To test the temporal stability of the instrument, 17 subjects answered the questionnaire twice, one week apart. Pearson product moment correlations between the two data sets ranged from 0.68 to 0.83, which according to the authors indicated acceptable stability [16].
Table 1

Rank order of barriers (n = 53 studies). The items ranked among the top ten in most studies are italicized.

Subscale and Item

Range

in percentage of nurses rating the item as a moderate to great barrier

Number of studies with > 50% of nurses rating the item as a moderate to great barrier

Number of studies rating the item among the top ten of barriers

Nurse Subscale: The nurse's research values, skills and awareness

   

The nurse is unaware of the research

10-77

24

27

The nurse does not feel capable of evaluating the quality of the research

5-83

25

25

The nurse is isolated from knowledgeable colleagues with whom to discuss the research

16-89

20

16

The nurse is unwilling to change/try new ideas

3-59

6

2

The nurse sees little benefit for self

3-61

5

2

There is not a documented need to change practice

8-55

1

2

The nurse feels the benefits of changing practice will be minimal

5-57

6

1

The nurse does not see the value of research for practice

3-58

3

0

Setting Subscale: Setting barriers and limitations

   

There is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas

16-89

38

49

The nurse does not have time to read research

8-88

38

48

The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures

22-85

33

43

The facilities are inadequate for implementation

16-88

32

36

Other staff are not supportive of implementation

13-79

29

31

Physicians will not cooperate with implementation

11-83

26

31

The nurse feels results are not generalizable to own setting

6-79

23

24

Administration will not allow implementation

9-71

8

7

Research Subscale: Qualities of the research

   

The research has not been replicated

4-67

12

6

The literature reports conflicting results

1-72

7

5

The research has methodological inadequacies

5-67

4

5

Research reports/articles are not published fast enough

9-69

5

4

The nurse is uncertain whether to believe the results of the research

3-55

4

0

The conclusions drawn from the research are not justified

0-57

1

0

Presentation Subscale: Presentation and accessibility of the research

   

The statistical analyses are not understandable

4-90

36

40

The relevant literature is not compiled in one place

8-86

33

37

Research reports/articles are not readily available

23-94

19

18

Implications for practice are not made clear

10-82

19

17

The research is not reported clearly and readably

3-83

18

15

The research is not relevant to the nurse's practice

5-60

3

0

Items not included in any of the subscales

   

The amount of research information is overwhelming* (27 articles)

10-71

11

13

Research reports/articles are written in English** (15 articles)

18-89

6

11

*Did not load on any of the four factors (subscales) in Funk et al.'s factor analysis

**Additional item in 15 studies from non-English-speaking countries

Two previous reviews of the BARRIERS scale have been published [21, 22]. These reviews were primarily descriptive; their results suggest relative consistency in the ratings of barriers across included studies. The systematic review reported here differs from these two reviews in three ways: we assess the quality of included studies; we analyze the BARRIERS scale literature and discuss the validity of the scale using both individual items and the four BARRIERS subscales; and we provide a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of trends, concordance between studies, and associations between the results and the study characteristics.

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the state of knowledge resulting from use of the BARRIERS scale and, secondarily, to make recommendations about future use of the scale. The specific research objectives addressed were as follows:
  1. 1.

    To examine how the scale has been modified.

     
  2. 2.

    To examine psychometric properties of the scale.

     
  3. 3.

    To determine the main barriers, over time, and by geographic location.

     
  4. 4.

    To identify associations between nurses' reported barriers and reported research use.

     

Methods

Search strategy

We searched for published reports in Medline (1991 to 2007) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1991 to 2007) using the search terms outlined in Figure 1. We searched for unpublished dissertations in ProQuest® Digital Dissertations (1991 to 2007) using a title search of 'research' and 'barriers'. Additionally, we conducted a citation search for Funk et al.'s original 1991 BARRIERS scale article [16] using Scopus. Finally, we conducted ancestry searches on relevant studies and two published reviews [21, 22]. Grey literature was not included in the search strategy. In October 2009, using the same databases and search terms, the search was updated for the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 September 2009.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-5908-5-32/MediaObjects/13012_2009_Article_246_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Search strategy.

Inclusion criteria

A study was eligible for inclusion if the study used Funk et al.'s BARRIERS scale in its entirety and the study sample was nurses. For criterion one, we included studies that used the original BARRIERS scale or applied minor modifications to the original scale (i.e., word modification). For criterion two, we included all types of registered nurses or student nurses regardless of role (i.e., administrator, educator, staff nurse) or setting (i.e., acute care, community care, long-term care). Only studies in English or a Scandinavian language (i.e., Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian) were included, reflecting our team's language abilities. No restrictions were made on the basis of study design.

Screening process

The original search resulted in 605 citations. One member of the team used the inclusion criteria to assess the titles, abstracts, and reference lists of the articles. This resulted in 60 citations. Secondary screening excluded six studies because only select items from the BARRIERS scale were used. Overall, screening resulted in 44 published articles and 10 dissertations, representing 52 studies (Figure 2). The updated search returned 234 additional citations and screening resulted in 11 new articles (Figure 2). For three authors (Barta, Baernholdt, and Nilsson Kajermo), both their dissertations [2325] and articles published [2630] from the dissertations were included because the dissertations presented results that were not reported in the articles. We could not locate any published papers from seven dissertations.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1748-5908-5-32/MediaObjects/13012_2009_Article_246_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Search and retrieval process. -Figure includes BOTH Barta Thesis and Barta manuscript. -Figure includes BOTH Baernholdt thesis and Baernholdt manuscript -Ancestry search includes: Green Thesis, Doerflinger Thesis, Nilsson Kajermo Thesis, Niederhauser & Kohr paper (these are the included citations that were not found by the search)

Quality assessment

The included studies (Table 2) were assessed for methodological strength using two quality assessment tools: one for cross-sectional studies, and one for before-and-after intervention design. These tools have been used in a previous review [31], but we modified the tools slightly because the same instrument (i.e., BARRIERS scale) was used in all the studies. We omitted two questions pertaining to measurement of the dependent variable. The modified quality assessment tool for cross-sectional studies included 11 questions (Table 3). The tool for before-and-after studies included 13 questions (Table 4). Each question was scored with 1 if the stated criterion for the question was met and with 0 if the stated criterion was not met. There was also a not applicable alternative. The actual score was calculated and divided by the total possible score. The maximum score for both the cross-sectional and the before-and-after studies tools was 1. A score <0.50 was considered weak quality, 0.50 to 0.74 moderate quality, and ≥0.75 strong quality.
Table 2

Characteristics of included studies in chronological order

Authors and year

Country

Setting/speciality

Sample

Quality

Sample size/(response rate %)

No opinion reported

Funk et al. 1991

USA

Mixed

Clinical nurses

moderate

924/(40)

No

Barta 1992, 1995

USA

Mixed/Paediatric care

Educators

moderate

213/(52)

No

Shaffer 1994

USA

Hospitals/Critical care

RN

moderate

336/(42)

No

Funk et al. 1995

USA

Mixed

Clinical administrators

moderate

440/(40)

No

Bobo 1997

USA

Hospital

RN

weak

40/(-)

No

Carroll et al. 1997

USA

Hospital and faculty

RN, advanced practice nurses, educators

weak

356/(30)

Yes

Dunn et al. 1997

UK

Palliative, elderly care

CNS, nurses

moderate

316/(-)

Yes

Grap et al. 1997

USA

Hospitals/Critical care

Staff nurses, managers, educators

moderate

353/(35.3)

No

Greene 1997

USA

Office practices

Oncology nurses

moderate

359/(36)

Yes

Lynn and Moore 1997

USA

Hospitals

Nurse managers

weak

40/(51)

No

Walsh 1997

UK

Hospitals/Emergency and Acute care

RN

weak

124/(62)

No

Walsh 1997

UK

Hospitals, community

RN

weak

141/(76.2)

No

Walsh 1997

UK

Community

RN

weak

58/(71)

No

Lewis et al. 1998

USA

Mixed/Nephrology

Nurses

weak

498/(34)

No

Nilsson Kajermo et al. 1998

Sweden

Hospitals

RN

moderate

237/(70)

Yes

^Nolan et al. 1998

UK

Hospitals

Nursing staff

weak

382/(27)

No

Rutledge et al. 1998

USA

Mixed/Oncology

Staff nurses, managers, CNS

strong

1100/(38)

407/(38)

Yes

Retsas and Nolan 1999

Australia

Hospitals

RN

weak

149/(25)

No

*Closs et al. 2000

UK

Hospitals

Nurses

moderate

712/(36)

530/(35.4)

182/(37.3)

No

Nilsson Kajermo et al. 2000

Sweden

Hospitals and faculty

Educators, students, administrators

moderate

36/(82)

166/(81)

33/(81)

Yes

†Parahoo 2000

Northern Ireland

Hospitals (general, psych and disability)

Staff nurses, specialist nurses, managers

moderate

1368/(52.6)

Yes

Retsas 2000

Australia

Hospital

RN

weak

400/(50)

No

*Closs and Bryar 2001

Factor analysis

UK

Hospitals, community, health authority

Nurses

moderate

2009/(44.6)

Yes

*Griffiths et al. 2001

UK

Community

Nurses

moderate

1297/(51.5)

No

Johnson and Maikler 2001

USA

Hospitals/Neonatal intensive care unit

Neonatal nurses

moderate

132/(17.6)

No

^Marsh et al. 2001

UK

Hospitals (1+2)

Qualified nursing staff

moderate

382/(27)

549/(36.4)

No

†Parahoo and McCaughan 2001

UK

Hospitals/Medical and surgical care

Nurses

weak

Med 210/(-)

Surg 269/(-)

No

Oranta et al. 2002

Finland

Hospitals

RN

moderate

253/(80)

Yes

*Bryar et al. 2003

UK

Hospitals, community, health authority

Nurses

moderate

2009/(44.6)

No

Kuuppelomäki and Toumi 2003

Finland

Hospitals, community

RN

moderate

400/(67)

Yes

McCleary and Brown 2003

Canada

Hospital/Paediatric

Paediatric nurses

moderate

176/(33.3)

Yes

Mountcastle 2003

USA

Mixed

CNS

moderate

162/(40.5)

Yes

Sommer 2003

USA

University hospital

RN

moderate

255/(27.8)

Yes

Carolan Doerflinger 2004

USA

Acute care

Acute care nurse administrators

weak

86/(9)

Yes

Carrion et al. 2004

UK

Mental Health

RN

moderate

47/(53.4)

Yes

Glacken and Chaney 2004

Ireland

Teaching and non- teaching hospitals

RN

weak

169/(39.6)

No

Hommelstad and Ruland 2004

Norway

Hospital/Perioperative

OR Nurses

moderate

81/(51)

Yes

Hutchinson and Johnston 2004

Australia

Teaching hospital

RN

moderate

317/(45)

Yes

Kirshbaum et al. 2004

UK

Mainly hospitals/Breast cancer

Breast cancer nurses

moderate

263/(76.2)

Yes

LaPierre et al. 2004

USA

Hospital/Perianesthesia

Staff nurses

weak

20/(67)

Yes

Nilsson Kajermo 2004

Sweden

Mixed

RN/Midwives educators

administrators

moderate

1634/(51-82)

Yes

Patiraki et al. 2004

Greece

General and oncology hospitals

Nurses

moderate

301/(72)

Yes

Ashley 2005

USA

Hospitals/Critical care

Critical care nurses

moderate

511/(17)

No

Baernholdt 2005, 2007

Various

Governments

Chief nursing officers

weak

38/(45)

No

Brenner 2005

Ireland

Not reported

Paediatric nurses

moderate

70/(35)

No

Fink et al. 2005

USA

University hospital Magnet hospital

RN

weak

Pre 215/(24)

Post 239/(27)

No

Niederhauser and Kohr 2005

USA

Paediatric

Paediatric nurse practitioners

strong

431/(69)

Yes

Paramonczyk 2005

Canada

Hospitals

RN (degree)

weak

25/(-)

No

Karkos and Peters 2006

USA

Community hospital (magnet hospital)

Licensed nursing staff

moderate

275/(47)

Yes

§Thompson et al. 2006

China, Hong Kong

Mixed settings

RN

moderate

1487/(30)

No

Andersson et al. 2007

Sweden

University hospitals/Paediatric care

RN, Paediatric nurses

moderate

56/(92)

Yes

Andersson et al. 2007

Sweden

University hospitals/Paediatric care

RN, Trainee programme,

specialist education in paediatric nursing

Control

moderate

113/(80)

Yes

Atkinson and Turkel 2008

USA

Hospital

(magnet hospital)

RN

weak

249/(23)

No

Boström et al. 2008

Sweden

Elder Care

RN

moderate

140/(67)

Yes

§Chau et al. 2008

China, Hong Kong

Mixed settings

RN

moderate

1487/(30)

yes

Deichmann Nielsen 2008

Denmark

Hospital

RN

weak

18/(81)

no

Mehrdad et al. 2008

Iran

Teaching hospitals and Faculty

RN

Educators

strong

375/(-)

35/(70)

yes

Nilsson Kajermo et al. 2008

Sweden

University hospital

RN

Midwives

moderate

833/(51)

no

Oh 2008

Korea

Teaching hospitals/Intensive and critical care

RN

Nurse managers

weak

63/(-)

no

Brown et al. 2009

USA

Academic medical centre

Nurses

moderate

458/(44.68)

Yes

Schoonover 2009

USA

Community hospital

RN

weak

79/(21)

yes

Strickland and O'Leary-Kelly 2009

USA

Mixed/Acute care

Educators

weak

122/(41)

yes

Yava et al. 2009

Turkey

Teaching and Military Hospitals

Nurses

moderate

631/(66.6)

yes

Footnote: From four samples/studies (*, ^, †, §) ten articles were published

Table 3

Summary of quality assessment of included studies with cross-sectional design (n = 61)

 

Number of studies

Sampling:

Yes

No

N/A*

   1. Was probability sampling used?

16

44

1

   2. Are the participants likely to be representative of the target population?

   

a) Very likely

2

  

b) Somewhat likely

48

  

c) Not likely

11

  

   3. Was sample size justified to obtain appropriate power?

53

8

 

   4. Was sample drawn from more than one site?

45

16

 

   5. If there are groups in the study, is there a statement they are matched in design or statistically adjusted?

10

28

23

   6. Response rate more than 60%

16

45

 

Measurement:

   

   1. Reliability indices

42

12

7

   2. Factor analysis

14

19

28

Statistical analysis:

   

   1. Were p-values reported?

43

3

15

   2. Were confidence intervals reported?

2

41

18

   3. Were missing data managed appropriately?

27

34

 

*N/A = not applicable

Table 4

Summary of quality assessment of included studies with before-and-after design (n = 2)

 

Number of studies

Sampling

Yes

No

N/A

1. Was probability sampling used?

1

1

 

2. Was sample size justified to obtain appropriate power?

1

1

 

3. Are the participants in the study likely to be representative of the target population?

   

   a. Very likely

   

   b. Somewhat likely

2

  

   c. Not likely

   

Design

   

1. One pretest or baseline and several posttest measures

 

2

 

2. Simple before-and-after study

   

Control of confounders:

   

1. Does the comparison strategy attempt to create or assess equivalence of the groups at baseline?

   

   a. Yes, by matching

 

2

 

   b. Yes, by statistical adjustment

 

2

 

   c. No

2

  

2. The group comparisons were the same for all occasions: (pre, baseline, and post evaluation)

1

1

 

Data collection and outcome measurement

   

1. Reliability indices

1

1

 

Statistical analysis

   

1. Was (were) the statistical test(s) used appropriate for the aim of the study?

2

  

2. Were p-values reported?

2

  

3. Were confidence intervals reported?

 

2

 

4. Were missing data managed appropriately?

 

2

 

Drop outs

Is attrition rate < 30%?

1

1

 

Data extraction

A protocol was developed to obtain information about design, setting, sampling techniques, sample and sample size, response rate, additional questionnaires used, results of subscales and items rating, and factors linked to barriers. To validate the protocol, four of the authors read and assessed five papers independently. Agreement was achieved on how to use the protocol and to extract data. For data extraction, two authors read all the articles. Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by consensus.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including frequencies for the barrier items, mean values of the subscales (for studies reporting the subscales originally identified by Funk et al.[16]), and Spearman's rank order correlations.

To identify the top ten barriers for the studies reporting the ranked items, we calculated the frequencies with which each item was reported among the top ten barriers, thus deriving a total score per item (max 53 points = being among top ten in 53 studies that reported results on item level). Because some articles reported the whole and others reported on fractions of the same sample, we chose to include studies reporting the whole sample in this calculation [3234], thereby excluding four articles reporting results from subsamples [3538].

To compare the reported rank order of items, we used Spearman's rank order correlations, including studies that reported rank orders of all items. Given the large number of correlation tests, a p-value <0.01 was considered as statistically significant. In this analysis we included only articles reporting on the whole study sample [3234]. For articles reporting rank order and percentage of agreement with the barriers statement for more than one subsample, but not for the total sample [28, 39, 40], we calculated weighted mean percentage values for agreement with the barrier statements (by multiplying each subsample size by the reported subsample percentage, summing the scores, and then dividing by the total sample size). The weighted mean percentage values were then used to create a rank order for the total sample.

For the top ten items identified for the time periods (1991 to 1999 and 2000 to September 2009), we compared, using Student's t-test for independent samples, subscale means and mean percentages for agreement with the barrier statements. We also compared subscale means and mean percentages for the top ten items between geographic locations (studies in North America, Europe-English, Europe non-English, Australia/Asia) using ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests. Because of repeated tests, a p-value of <0.01 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Characteristics of the 63 studies included in this review are presented in Table 2[19, 20, 2328, 30, 3239, 4170][12, 29, 40, 7185].

Quality of included studies

The assessed quality of the included articles and dissertations ranged from 0.27 to 0.78, resulting in quality being judged as weak for 22 studies, moderate for 38 studies, and strong for three studies (Table 2). Less than one-half of the included studies used probability sampling or achieved a response rate exceeding 60% (Table 3 and 4). Thirty-six studies failed to report on missing data and/or no opinion responses (Table 2, 3 and 4).

Design

Two studies used a pre- and post-intervention design [42, 76], one study was a methodological study [47], and two studies used multivariate regression techniques [29, 66]. In the remainder, cross-sectional, descriptive, and bivariate correlational designs were used.

Sample

Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 18 to 2009 (Table 2). In total, the current review is based on the results of 19,920 respondents. Ten studies reported a sample of more than 500 respondents; twelve studies reported a sample of less than 80 respondents. Response rates varied from 9% to 92%. The samples consisted of nurses with various role titles (e.g., nurses, nurse clinicians, registered nurses, staff nurses), working in various specialties and settings (Table 2). In other studies, the samples consisted of nurse managers/administrators (n = 8), nurse educators/teachers (n = 6), clinical nurse specialists/advanced practice nurses (n = 4), government chief nursing officers (n = 1), and nursing students (n = 1) (Table 2). Seventy-one percent of the studies (n = 45) were conducted in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, or Australia (Table 2). One study comprised an international sample of chief nursing officers, representing various countries and mother tongues [23, 26].

Modifications of the scale

Both the original 29-item BARRIERS scale and the 28-item version were represented in the included studies.

Modification of language

In eight studies, minor changes in the wording of the statements were made, mainly according to British language style [32, 33, 36, 45, 49, 6870]. Lynn and Moore [59], Kuuppelomäki and Tuomi [56], and Baernholdt [23, 26] chose to use the word 'I' instead of 'nurse' in the statements. For example, the item 'the nurse is unaware of the research' was reworded to read 'I am unaware of the research.' The BARRIERS scale was translated to Swedish [12, 25, 2830, 40, 71], Finnish [56, 62], Greek [63], Norwegian [52], Danish [75], Persian [78], Turkish [85], Korean [80], and Cantonese Chinese [74, 84].

Modifications of item and response format

In two articles, the twenty-sixth item in the BARRIERS scale ('the nurse is unwilling to change/try new ideas') was divided into two items: 'the nurse is unwilling to change practice' and 'the nurse is unwilling to try new ideas' [74, 84]. In two studies, the 'no opinion' response option was changed to 'do not know' or 'neither agree nor disagree' and was reordered in the answer options [56, 59]. In two further studies, the 'no opinion' response option was reordered to the center of the scale [53, 84].

Barriers related to specific research findings

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived barriers to use of specific research findings in the studies by Grap et al. (hemodynamic monitoring) [50], Greene (guideline for pain management) [51], Carolan Doerflinger (use of restraints) [44], and Baernholdt (the impact of nurse staffing on patient and nurse outcomes) [23, 26].

The 'no opinion' response category

In 32 of the included studies, the authors reported the frequency or percentage of 'no opinion' responses (Table 2). In all these studies, the highest numbers or percentages of 'no opinion' responses were for items belonging to the research subscale. In some studies, more than one-half of the respondents chose the 'no opinion' alternative for some of the items in this subscale [12, 25, 28, 30, 40, 52, 56, 71], which the authors interpreted as an indication of lack of knowledge of research methods.

Reports on psychometric properties

Reliability

Fourteen studies reported Cronbach's alpha values for the total scale, with scores ranging from 0.84 to 0.96, indicating internal consistency [30, 40, 45, 48, 51, 53, 57, 62, 64, 71, 74, 78, 84, 85]. The Cronbach's alpha values for the subscales identified by Funk et al.[16] are presented in 24 studies and varied from 0.47 to 0.94 (Table 5). Of these, 18 studies reported alpha values below 0.70, mostly on the presentation subscale [12, 19, 20, 2528, 39, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 57, 63, 73, 76, 84].
Table 5

Reported mean and/or Cronbach's alpha values on the Barrier Scale subscales nurse, setting, research, and presentation (n = 35).

Authors

Sample

Nurse

(8 items)

m

Setting

(8 items)

m

Research

(6 items)

m

Presentation

(6 items)

m

Cronbach's alpha

Funk et al. 1991

Nurses

2.56

3.00

2.29

2.72

0.65-0.80

Funk et al. 1995

Adm

2.78

2.86

2.35

2.80

0.65-0.80

Barta 1995

Educators

2.98

2.91

2.23

2.67

0.55-0.79

Carroll et al. 1997

Mixed

2.3

2.7

2.2

2.6

0.67-0.81

Lynn and Moore 1997

NM

2.41

2.56

2.75

3.11

Not

reported

Bobo 1997

PreIG

2.85

3.06

3.04

2.56

Not

reported

 

PreCG

2.91

3.30

3.31

2.83

 
 

PostIG

2.50

2.83

3.19

2.22

 
 

PostCG

2.84

3.23

3.14

2.88

 

Dunn et al. 1997

Nurses

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not

reported

0.4760-0.7796

Greene 1997

Nurses

1.42

1.72

1.24

1.39

0.69-0.83

Rutledge et al. 1998

Nurses

NM

1.82

2.60

2.52

2.69

2.04

2.23

2.53

2.58

0.69-0.79

Nilsson Kajermo et al. 1998

RN

2.2

2.7

2.1

2.6

0.81-0.87

Parahoo 2000

Mixed

2.31

2.73

2.26

2.44

0.8368-0.8957

Nilsson Kajermo et al. 2000

Educators

2.5

2.7

1.8

2.6

 
 

Stud

2.4

2.8

2.1

2.6

0.64-0.94

 

Adm

2.6

2.5

2.1

2.7

 

Oranta et al. 2002

RN

2.35

2.72

2.28

2.62

0.7193-0.8080

Sommer 2003

RN

2.38

2.93

2.39

2.60

0.71-0.85

Mountcastle 2003

CNS

2.73

2.85

2.52

2.40

Not

reported

McCleary and Brown

2003

Paediatric nurses

2.29

2.61

2.39

2.63

0.88-0.93

Carrion et al. 2004

RNs

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not

reported

0.67-0.83

Carolan Doerflinger 2004

Adm

2.55

2.55

2.52

2.62

Not

reported

Hommelstad and Ruland 2004

Nurses

2.2

2.8

2.5

2.6

0.67-0.74

Glacken and Chaney

2004

RN

2.54

3.09

2.31

2.64

Not

reported

Patiraki et al. 2004

Nurses

2.18

2.85

2.82

2.91

0.67-0.81

LaPierre et al. 2004

Nurses

2.58

3.15

2.72

2.70

0.47-0.83

Nilsson Kajermo 2004

RN

2.2

2.8

2.1

2.6

0.69-0.83

Fink et al. 2005

Pre

Post

2.38

2.26

2.76

2.61

2.17

2.14

2.65

2.57

0.67-0.80

0.58-0.79

Ashley 2005

Critical care nurses

2.44

2.87

2.23

2.51

0.706-0.818

Baernholdt 2005

Chief govern-ment nursing officers

1.42

1.86

1.91

2.03

0.57-0.77

Karkos and Peters 2006

Nurses

2.25

2.63

2.12

2.48

Not

reported

Thompson et al. 2006

RN

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not

reported

0.63-0.84

Atkinson and Turkel 2008

RN

2.23

2.61

2.16

2.38

Not

reported

Boström et al. 2008

RN

2.19

2.71

2.17

2.62

0.67-0.78

Chau et al. 2008

RN

2.63

3.00

2.63

2.74

0.71-0.93

Oh 2008

RN, NM

2.17

2.60

2.24

2.59

0.71-0.84

Brown et al. 2009

Nurses

2.28

2.63

2.16

2.39

0.67-0.82

Schoonover 2009

RN

2.35

2.88

2.05

2.53

Not

reported

Strickland and O'Leary-Kelly 2009

Educators

2.80

2.94

2.19

2.64

Not

reported

RN = registered nurses, NM = nurse managers, Stud = Nurse students, Adm = administrators, CNS = clinical. specialist nurses

PreIG = pretest intervention group, PreCG = pretest control group, PostIG = posttest intervention group, PostCG = pretest intervention group.

The highest and lowest values on each subscale are bolded.

Content validity and response process

In 14 of the included studies, a pretest/pilot study was performed to test the items before the major study [23, 30, 36, 38, 44, 51, 52, 55, 56, 62, 63, 66, 69, 78]. These pretest/pilot studies resulted in minor changes in wording of some items. In some of the pilot studies performed on translated versions of the scale, an item was added regarding use of the English language as a barrier.

Internal structure

In 13 studies, the authors performed factor analyses (Table 6). Of these, 10 resulted in three- to eight-factor solutions that differed more or less from the factors identified by Funk et al.[25, 32, 41, 47, 53, 55, 64, 65, 67, 78]. The factor analyses performed by Hutchinson and Johnston [53], Ashley [41], and Mehrdad et al.[78] resulted in four factors that were almost identical to those identified by Funk et al.[16]. Dunn et al.[48] performed a confirmatory factor analysis and concluded that the factor model proposed by Funk et al. was not appropriate for their data.
Table 6

Factor analyses performed (n = 13).

Authors, year, country

Number of factors identified (no. of items included in the solution) Cronbach's alpha values of the factors

Variance accounted for by the factors %

Methods used

Funk et al. 1991,

USA

4 (28) in both samples 0.65-0.80

43.4 respectively 44.9

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation

Shaffer, 1994, USA

Several possible solutions were identified

 

Not reported

Dunn et al. 1998, UK

The Funk model not appropriate

 

Confirmatory factor analyses (structural equation modeling)

Retsas and Nolan, 1999, Australia

3 (26)

38.9

PCA with varimax rotation

Retsas, 2000, Australia

4 (29) 0.68-0.85

46.5

PCA with varimax rotation

Marsh et al. 2001, UK

4 (27 resp 24)

The items loaded inconsistently on the four factors (two samples). Impossible to interpret the factors

 

PCA followed by confirmatory factor analysis

Closs and Bryar, 2001, UK

4 (23) 0.66-0.79

47.5

PCA with varimax rotation

Sommer, 2003, USA

8, 4, and 3 factors were possible solutions

 

Not reported

Hutchinson and Johnston, 2004, Australia

4 (27) 0.54-0.74

39.2

PCA

Kirshbaum et al. 2004, UK

3

 

Least squares extraction with varimax rotation

Nilsson Kajermo, 2004, Sweden

4 (27) 0.90-0.96

45.3

PCA with varimax rotation

Ashley, 2005, USA

4 (29)

Not reported

PCA with varimax rotation

Mehrdad et al. 2008, Iran

4 (31)

46.5

PCA

Associations between perceptions of barriers and other factors

In many studies, associations between demographic data--concerning, for example, age (n = 36), education (n = 38), and professional experience (n = 34)--and the perceptions of barriers were investigated. These findings were inconclusive. Furthermore, the demographic data were often presented in different ways and were correlated with the subscales or to the individual items of the BARRIERS scale, thus making it difficult to obtain a distinct picture of these associations.

The main barriers to research utilization

In 84% (n = 53) of the 63 studies, the perceived barriers were presented in rank order, primarily based on the percentage of respondents agreeing with each item being a moderate or great barrier to research use. In many studies, all items were rank ordered, whereas in others, only the top ten, five, or three were presented. In five studies, the rank order was derived from the mean value of the items [57, 63, 72, 77, 83]. Some studies presented rank orders based on both the percentage of respondents agreeing with the item being a barrier and the mean values of each item [39, 40, 49, 51, 53, 59, 62, 64, 71, 73, 78, 80, 82]. In Table 1, the items of the BARRIERS scale are presented according to the original subscales. For each item, the range in percentage of respondents agreeing with the item being a great or moderate barrier is given as reported for each study. The items 'there is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas,' 'the nurse does not have time to read research,' 'the nurse does not have enough authority to change patient care procedures,' 'the statistical analyses are not understandable,' together with 'the relevant literature is not compiled in one place' were most frequently reported among the top ten barriers (Table 1). Six of the ten top items belonged to the setting subscale. Four of the items in the BARRIERS scale were not among the top-ranked barriers in any of the studies (Table 1).

In 32 of the studies, the results were presented as mean values of the subscales (Table 5), with the highest values for the setting and presentation subscales. Higher values indicate greater perceived barriers. The main barriers to using research were related to the setting and how the findings are presented.

Correlations between reported rank orders of the included studies

The rankings of barriers in the studies reporting all items (n = 37) were compared using Spearman's rank order correlation. This resulted in 703 correlation coefficients, ranging between -0.02 and 0.96. Of these, 461 correlation coefficients exceeded 0.50, and 485 correlations were found to be significant (p < 0.01). Thus, the rank orders of the included studies were correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with few exceptions, despite variations in wording of items, sample size, response rate, and study settings. The greatest exception was Baernholdt's study on government chief nursing officers internationally [23, 26], in which the rank order correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with just one other study [63].

Researchers who studied the relationship between perceived barriers and use of specific research findings [23, 44, 50, 51] reported, overall, the same top ten rank ordering of barriers as reported in other studies, with the exception of Baernholdt [23, 26].

Detecting changes in nurses' perceptions

In only two of the studies was the BARRIERS scale used at more than one time, in a pre- and post-intervention design [42, 76]. Bobo [42] studied the impact of electronic distribution of nursing research, and Fink et al.[76] studied the impact of educational material and organizational strategies on nurses' perception of barriers to research utilization. Both studies found a significant decrease in the mean scores for two of the subscales (the 'nurse' and the 'setting' [76], and the 'nurse' and the 'presentation' [42], respectively) after interventions to support research utilization.

Main barriers over time

To understand how the barriers have changed over time, the sample was arbitrarily divided into two groups; one group included studies published before 2000, and the other consisted of studies from 2000 onward. Subscale mean values for studies published before 2000 (n = 8) were: nurse 2.31, setting 2.62, research 2.15, and presentation 2.55, and the mean values for studies published during or after year 2000 (n = 23) were: nurse 2.35, setting 2.74, research 2.30, and presentation 2.57. We found no significant differences in mean values when comparing over time. We also explored the top ten items and found no significant differences over time in the percentage of nurses reporting the items as great or moderate barriers.

Barriers in different geographic locations

We categorized the studies according to where they were performed, i.e., North America (n = 26), European English-speaking countries (n = 12), European non-English-speaking countries (n = 12), and Australia and Asia (n = 7). We did not find any significant differences in mean subscale values when comparing across geographic locations.

With regard to the top ten barriers, we found significant differences (p < 0.01) for three of the top ten items when comparing mean percentages for agreement on an item being a barrier. Fewer nurses from European non-English-speaking countries reported 'the nurse is unaware of the research' as a barrier than did nurses from European English-speaking countries (34.2% versus 60.2% p = 0.005) or nurses from North America (34.2% versus 56.4%, p = 0.012). A higher percentage of nurses from European English-speaking countries and European non-English-speaking countries reported 'the facilities are inadequate for implementation' as a barrier than did nurses from North America (69.2%% versus 46.3%, p = 0.001, and 65.8% versus 46.3%, p = 0.006, respectively). For the item 'other staff are not supportive of implementation,' a higher percentage of nurses from European English-speaking countries perceived it as a barrier than did nurses from non-English-speaking countries in Europe (65.6% versus 43.7%, p = 0.006).

For 14 of the 15 studies performed in non-English-speaking countries, an extra item was included concerning the fact that most research is published in the English language, which is a foreign language to many respondents. This language item was among the top ten barriers in 11 of these studies [12, 25, 28, 30, 40, 62, 63, 71, 75, 80, 85].

Associations between nurses' perceptions of barriers and reported research use

An important dimension of validity is the assessment of the hypothesized relationships between the scale items and a relevant outcome, in this case the anticipated association between barriers to research utilization and research use. However, few studies (n = 6) reported any attempt to examine an association between barriers and research use [12, 24, 43, 60, 66, 73]. Of these, five reported only bivariate assessments and one used a multivariate assessment. Barta found no significant correlation between research use and reported barriers [24]. McCleary and Brown reported one significant subscale correlation, between research use and 'characteristics of the nurse,' suggesting that nurses reporting more research use perceived fewer barriers related to the nurse's research values, skills, and awareness [60]. Boström et al. reported a weak but significant correlation between the presentation subscale and research use [12]. In this study, the self-identified research users rated significantly lower on three subscales (presentation, nurse, and research) than did the non-research users. Brown et al. found two significant correlations between the presentation subscale and 1) knowledge and skills with evidence-based practice (EBP), and 2) practice of EBP, indicating that greater perceived barriers regarding the presentation of research were associated with lower perceived knowledge and skills and less use of EBP. The third association was between the setting subscale and knowledge and skills with EBP, revealing that the more the setting was perceived as a barrier, the lower the nurses' perceptions of their own knowledge and skills [73]. Brenner found no relationship between frequency of reading research journals and nurses' perceptions of barriers [43]. Shaffer, using path analysis, found that research activities, such as the reading of research journals, did not affect nurses' perceptions of barriers [66].

Discussion

Assessing over 60 studies using the BARRIERS scale, we found reported barriers to research use have remained constant over time and across geographic locations. The rank order of items was found to be uniform, although the percentage of agreement varied between studies. Despite differences in method, our findings were similar to those of Carlson and Plonczynski [22], who analyzed correlations between year of publication and mean percentage of items reported as barriers to research use. They concluded that perceived barriers have not changed since the scale's publication. Conversely, we compared the mean values of the four subscales between two groups (1991 to 1999 and 2000 to 2009) using Student's t-test and did not find any significant differences when compared across time. Using this approach, we confirmed Carlson and Plonczynski's [22] findings. There are some minor differences between our results and Carlson and Plonczynski's [22] when comparing across geographic locations. Carlson and Plonczynski [22] compared barriers across three geographic locations: United States of America, United Kingdom, and other countries. Using vote counting to calculate differences between countries, they found differences on five items. We compared barriers across geographical locations by dividing the studies based on whether they included subjects from North America, Europe-English, Europe non-English, or Australia/Asia. Using ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests to compare mean percentages for the top ten items and the subscale means, we did not find any differences in subscale means, but did find three differences across the top ten items. Both our results and Carlson and Plonczynski's suggest that a significantly higher percentage of nurses outside North America view inadequate facilities as a barrier to research use than do their North American colleagues.

The quality of the 63 studies was generally weak to moderate (22 weak, 38 moderate, and 3 strong), reflecting trends often reported in systematic reviews. We found no differences in reported findings between the weak and stronger studies, however, possibly suggesting that the general and descriptive nature of the studies was resistant to methodological flaws. Nonspecific wording limits the usefulness of the BARRIERS scale as a tool for planning interventions. For example, the statement 'facilities are not adequate for implementation,' one of the top ten items, provides little insight into aspects of facilities that might be deficient. Facilities could refer to material resources, such as access to a computer and electronic databases, or to human resources, such as access to clinical specialists or facilitators. Nonspecific barrier items could contribute to the consistent results. Additionally, two consistently high-ranking items ('lack of time to read' and 'lack of time to implement research') require further investigation if they are to be used to plan interventions. The meaning of 'time' as a barrier to research use is rarely described and is not described in the scale. Time is a complex phenomenon and, as Thompson et al. recently suggested, busyness, in the context of research utilization, includes multiple dimensions such as physical time, but perhaps more importantly, mental time [86]. Such a distinction has important implications for designing strategies to overcome barriers to research use. Additionally, study authors using the BARRIERS scale relied almost exclusively on cross-sectional designs. This approach is problematic when exploring complex barriers such as time. Tydén suggested that using a longitudinal design to study research utilization provides more accurate findings [87]. Using a longitudinal design to study environmental and health officers, he found that respondents initially reported socially acceptable barriers (such as lack of time), but as the study proceeded, respondents changed their responses to reflect more complex underlying barriers [87]. Another approach was used by Ashley, who asked nurses to rank barriers in relation to a specific research utilization project and found that time was not ranked among the top three barriers [41].

Despite minor modifications of the BARRIERS scale across studies, our results support the reliability of the BARRIERS scale; that is, the reported Cronbach's alpha values indicate internal consistency. However, the validity of the scale to accurately capture barriers to research use is much more at issue. This instrument, developed in accordance with healthcare environments in the late 1980s and early 1990s, has been administered predominantly in its original format since then, without detecting any changes in the perceptions of barriers over time. Both healthcare systems and the nursing profession have undergone significant changes over the past 30 years, and it is difficult to believe that such changes have not affected nurses' reported perceptions of barriers to research use. For example, in healthcare today, patient participation in decision making is much more evident and, in some countries, even legally regulated. Patients' preferences and opinions could, hypothetically, present a barrier to research use. Barriers with respect to patients' opinions were added to the BARRIERS scale by Greene, who measured barriers toward pain management in oncology care [51]. 'Patients will not take medication or follow the recommendations' was rated as the third highest ranked barriers by the nurses.

In addition to changes in patient participation in healthcare decision-making, dramatic advances have occurred in information technology and its use in healthcare. Hutchinson and Johnston [21] identified information technology as a mechanism for supporting point-of-care retrieval of research. Additionally, organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration provide online access to synthesized research evidence. It stands to reason that efforts to increase accessibility to synthesized research evidence would lead to a decrease in the percentage of nurses reporting barriers related to presentation of research. However, despite these recent advances aimed at making research more accessible to practitioners, the item 'the relevant literature is not compiled in one place' and the presentation subscale remain among the top items and subscales, respectively.

Items within the research subscale, and the research subscale itself, were not among the top barriers in any of the studies (Table 1). The research subscale items in the BARRIERS scale do not reflect innovation characteristics as reported in Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory. Rogers identified relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability of the innovation, as well as the user's values and experiences of the innovation [18], as key attributes to adoption of innovation. However, the items in the research subscale refer primarily to the quality of the research (Table 1). There is evidence to suggest the quality of research plays a minimal role in influencing nurses to use or not use research. Instead, factors related to compatibility and trialability are of greater importance [88]. One would therefore expect that this subscale would be of limited usefulness and that efforts would be better spent investigating attributes more closely aligned with Rogers' attributes of successful innovations.

An untested assumption of the BARRIERS scale is that a relationship exists between perceptions of barriers to research utilization and actual research use. Of the 63 studies in the present review, only six studies [12, 24, 43, 60, 66, 73] investigated this relationship. Of these, three studies found significant bivariate correlations between research use and perceived barriers to research use. Specifically, research use was associated with fewer barriers in relation to nurses' research values, skills, and awareness [60], and with respect to the presentation of research [12, 73]. Further, Brown et al. found a significant negative association between perceptions of barriers in the setting and nurses' knowledge and skills in using research [73]. While this finding may point to a potential link between barriers in the setting and research use, there is no evidence of such a relationship. Potential associations cannot be asserted on the basis of correlations that, when subjected to more rigorous multivariate assessments, often lose statistical significance. Thus, despite our finding that the setting represents the greatest perceived barrier to research use, a significant relationship between this subscale and actual research use has not been reported, leaving significant unanswered questions regarding the scale's validity.

Continued reliance on the BARRIERS scale to elicit perceptions of barriers to research uptake is unlikely to provide an accurate picture of the barriers that exist in the current clinical setting. Recent work undertaken by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) provides alternative approaches to categorizing and assessing potential barriers to research use [13]. The EPOC Group classified barriers into eight categories: information management and clinical uncertainty, sense of competence, perceptions of liability, patient expectations, standards of practice, financial disincentives, administrative constraints, and others [13]. A similar approach is taken by Gravel et al., who present a comprehensive taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to shared decision making that could readily be applied to research use [89].

Strengths and limitations

There are limitations to this systematic review. First, we did not exclude studies based on quality, as we were interested in comparing results from as many studies as possible to capture possible differences. Second, heterogeneity between the studies in terms of reporting results led to complicated data extraction procedures, preventing meta-analysis. Third, judgments related to data extraction and quality assessment create a certain amount of subjectivity that may influence the results. Finally, we included studies in English and Scandinavian languages only, and it is possible we missed potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Conversely, the review has several strengths. Since the previous review [22], 18 new articles were identified, strengthening the findings and conclusions of this present review. We used statistical analyses to compare barriers across time and geographical locations as well as to compare rank orders of perceived barriers of the included studies.

Recommendation for future research

The key issue raised by this review is whether barriers to research utilization should be measured on a general and nonspecific level, or if specific barriers capturing both the context and the particular characteristics of the evidence (or innovation) should be assessed. We recommend that no further descriptive studies using the BARRIERS scale be undertaken, because further use would constitute a waste of scarce research resources. Instead, we recommend examination of various contextual and human factors for enhancing research use in a given organizational context. To advance the field and improve the quality of care for patients, tailored interventions need careful evaluation. Such interventions must address locally relevant barriers to research utilization and the characteristics of the intervention.

Summary

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the state of knowledge resulting from use of the BARRIERS scale and, secondarily, to make recommendations about future use of the scale. Despite variations in study setting, sample size, response rate, assessed quality, wording of items, and the placement of the 'no opinion' response option, the rank orders of barriers were remarkably consistent in the studies we reviewed. The BARRIERS scale is a general (nonspecific) tool for identifying barriers to research use, and while reliable, little evidence supporting its construct validity exists. It has not been used to identify barriers to inform the development of strategies and interventions to promote research use. Thus, there is no evidence that the scale is useful for informing intervention studies. Furthermore, given the highly general nature of the items on this scale, it is unlikely that it has the ability to adequately inform interventions intended to increase the use of evidence in practice.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

KNK and LW are funded by the Clinical Research Utilization unit, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. LW is also supported by the Center for Caring Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. AMB is funded by Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) fellowships. AMH was a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Faculty of Nursing and Knowledge Utilization Studies Program of the University of Alberta, Canada, at the time this research was conducted. She was supported by CIHR and AHFMR Fellowships. CAE holds a CIHR Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. The authors are grateful to Nathan LaRoi of MacEwan University who copyedited the manuscript.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Clinical Research Utilization (CRU), Karolinska University Hospital
(2)
Knowledge Utilization Studies Program (KUSP), Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta
(3)
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet
(4)
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
(5)
School of Nursing, Deakin University and Cabrini-Deakin Centre for Nursing Research, Cabrini Institute

References

  1. Ketefian S: Application of selected nursing research findings into nursing practice: a pilot study. Nurs Res. 1975, 24: 89-92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kirchhoff KT: A diffusion survey of coronary precautions. Nurs Res. 1982, 31: 196-201. 10.1097/00006199-198207000-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brett JL: Use of nursing practice research findings. Nurs Res. 1987, 36: 344-349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Veeramah V: A study to identify the attitudes and needs of qualified staff concerning the use of research findings in clinical practice within mental health care settings. J Adv Nurs. 1995, 22: 855-861. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb02635.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Berggren AC: Swedish midwives' awareness of, attitudes to and use of selected research findings. J Adv Nurs. 1996, 23: 462-470. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb00007.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Parahoo K: Research utilization and research related activities of nurses in Northern Ireland. Int J Nurs Stud. 1998, 35: 283-291. 10.1016/S0020-7489(98)00041-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Estabrooks CA: The conceptual structure of research utilization. Res Nurs Health. 1999, 22: 203-216. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199906)22:3<203::AID-NUR3>3.0.CO;2-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Humphris D, Hamilton S, O'Halloran P, Fisher S, Littlejohns P: Do diabetes nurse specialists utilise research evidence?. Practical Diabetes International. 1999, 16: 47-50. 10.1002/pdi.1960160213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Rodgers SE: A study of the utilization of research in practice and the influence of education. Nurse Educ Today. 2000, 20: 279-287. 10.1054/nedt.1999.0395.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjorkstrom ME, Hamrin EK: Swedish nurses' attitudes towards research and development within nursing. J Adv Nurs. 2001, 34: 706-714. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01800.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wallin L, Bostrom AM, Wikblad K, Ewald U: Sustainability in changing clinical practice promotes evidence-based nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 2003, 41: 509-518. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02574.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostrom AM, Nilsson Kajermo K, Nordstrom G, Wallin L: Barriers to research utilization and research use among registered nurses working in the care of older people: Does the BARRIERS Scale discriminate between research users and non-research users on perceptions of barriers?. Implement Sci. 2008, 3:Google Scholar
  13. Shaw B, Cheater F, Baker R, Gillies C, Hearnshaw H, Flottorp S, Robertson N: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, CD005470-Google Scholar
  14. Bosch M, Weijden van der T, Wensing M, Grol R: Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13: 161-168. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00660.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Medical Research Council: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: New guidance. 2008, London: Medical Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  16. Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM: BARRIERS: the Barriers to Research Utilization Scale. Appl Nurs Res. 1991, 4: 39-45. 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80052-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Horsley JA, Crane J, Bingle JD: Research utilization as an organizational process. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1978, 4-6. 10.1097/00005110-197807000-00001.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. 2003, New York: Free Press, 5Google Scholar
  19. Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM: Barriers to using research findings in practice: the clinician's perspective. Appl Nurs Res. 1991, 4: 90-95. 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80062-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Funk SG, Champagne MT, Tornquist EM, Wiese RA: Administrators' views on barriers to research utilization. Appl Nurs Res. 1995, 8: 44-49. 10.1016/S0897-1897(95)80331-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchinson AM, Johnston L: Beyond the BARRIERS Scale: commonly reported barriers to research use. J Nurs Adm. 2006, 36: 189-199. 10.1097/00005110-200604000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlson CL, Plonczynski DJ: Has the BARRIERS Scale changed nursing practice? An integrative review. J Adv Nurs. 2008, 63: 322-333. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04705.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Baernholdt M: Government chief nursing officers' perceptions of barriers to using research on nurse staffing: an international e-mail survey. 2005, University of Pennsylvania, Department of NursingGoogle Scholar
  24. Barta KM: Information-seeking, research utilization, and perceived barriers to research utilization of pediatric nurseeducators. 1992, University of ArkansasGoogle Scholar
  25. Nilsson Kajermo K: Research utilisation in nursing practice - barriers and facilitators. 2004, (Partly in Swedish) Karolinska Institutet, Department of NursingGoogle Scholar
  26. Baernholdt M, Lang NM: Government chief nursing officers' perceptions of barriers to using research on staffing. Int Nurs Rev. 2007, 54: 49-55. 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2007.00511.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Barta KM: Information-seeking, research utilization, and barriers to research utilization of pediatric nurse educators. J Prof Nurs. 1995, 11: 49-57. 10.1016/S8755-7223(95)80073-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kajermo KN, Nordstrom G, Krusebrant A, Bjorvell H: Perceptions of research utilization: comparisons between health care professionals, nursing students and a reference group of nurse clinicians. J Adv Nurs. 2000, 31: 99-109. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01255.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kajermo KN, Unden M, Gardulf A, Eriksson LE, Orton ML, Arnetz BB, Nordstrom G: Predictors of nurses' perceptions of barriers to research utilization. J Nurs Manag. 2008, 16: 305-314. 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00770.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nilsson Kajermo K, Nordstrom G, Krusebrant A, Bjorvell H: Barriers to and facilitators of research utilization, as perceived by a group of registered nurses in Sweden. J Adv Nurs. 1998, 27: 798-807. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00614.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Estabrooks CA, Cummings GG, Olivo SA, Squires JE, Giblin C, Simpson N: Effects of shift length on quality of patient care and health provider outcomes: systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009, 18: 181-188. 10.1136/qshc.2007.024232.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh GW, Nolan M, Hopkins S: Testing the revised barriers to research utilization scale for use in the UK. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing. 2001, 5: 66-72. 10.1054/cein.2001.0192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Parahoo K: Barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization among nurses in Northern Ireland. J Adv Nurs. 2000, 31: 89-98. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01256.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bryar RM, Closs SJ, Baum G, Cooke J, Griffiths J, Hostick T, Kelly S, Knight S, Marshall K, Thompson DR: The Yorkshire BARRIERS project: diagnostic analysis of barriers to research utilisation. Int J Nurs Stud. 2003, 40: 73-84. 10.1016/S0020-7489(02)00039-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Closs SJ, Baum G, Bryar RM, Griffiths J, Knight S: Barriers to research implementation in two Yorkshire hospitals. Clin Eff Nurs. 2000, 4: 3-10. 10.1054/cein.2000.0100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Nolan M, Morgan L, Curran M, Clayton J, Gerrish K, Parker K: Evidence-based care: can we overcome the barriers?. Br J Nurs. 1998, 7: 1273-1278.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffiths JM, Bryar RM, Closs SJ, Cooke J, Hostick T, Kelly S, Marshall K: Barriers to research implementation by community nurses. Br J Community Nurs. 2001, 6: 501-510.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Parahoo K, McCaughan EM: Research utilization among medical and surgical nurses: a comparison of their self reports and perceptions of barriers and facilitators. J Nurs Manag. 2001, 9: 21-30. 10.1046/j.1365-2834.2001.00237.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rutledge DN, Ropka M, Greene PE, Nail L, Mooney KH: Barriers to research utilization for oncology staff nurses and nurse managers/clinical nurse specialists. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998, 25: 497-506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Andersson N, Jylli L, Kajermo KN, Klang B: Nurses in paediatric care-self-reported professional self and perceived research utilization. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007, 21: 426-433. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2006.00486.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ashley JS: Barriers and facilitators to research utilization as perceived by critical care nurses. 2005, University of California, Department of NursingGoogle Scholar
  42. Bobo CM: A study of the impact of using electronic mail to disseminate nursing research on nurses' perceptions of barriers to research utilization. 1997, Florida Atlantic University, Faculty of the College of NursingGoogle Scholar
  43. Brenner M: Children's nursing in Ireland: barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilisation. Paediatr Nurs. 2005, 17: 40-45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Carolan Doerflinger DM: The relationship between acute care nurse administrators' knowledge and attitudes and restraint reduction. 2004, George Mason University, College of Nursing and Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  45. Carrion M, Woods P, Norman I: Barriers to research utilisation among forensic mental health nurses. Int J Nurs Stud. 2004, 41: 613-619. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.01.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Carroll DL, Greenwood R, Lynch KE, Sullivan JK, Ready CH, Fitzmaurice JB: Barriers and facilitators to the utilization of nursing research. Clin Nurse Spec. 1997, 11: 207-212. 10.1097/00002800-199709000-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Closs SJ, Bryar RM: The BARRIERS scale: Does it 'fit' the current NHS research culture?. NT Research. 2001, 6: 853-865.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Dunn V, Crichton N, Roe B, Seers K, Williams K: Using research for practice: a UK experience of the BARRIERS Scale. J Adv Nurs. 1997, 26: 1203-1210.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Glacken M, Chaney D: Perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing research findings in the Irish practice setting. J Clin Nurs. 2004, 13: 731-740. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00941.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Grap MJ, Pettrey L, Thornby D: Hemodynamic monitoring: a comparison of research and practice. Am J Crit Care. 1997, 6: 452-456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Greene PE: Diffusion of innovations in cancer pain management and barriers to changing practice: a study of office practice oncology nurses. 1997, Georgia State University, the School of NursingGoogle Scholar
  52. Hommelstad J, Ruland CM: Norwegian nurses' perceived barriers and facilitators to research use. Aorn J. 2004, 79: 621-634. 10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60914-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Hutchinson AM, Johnston L: Bridging the divide: a survey of nurses' opinions regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilization in the practice setting. J Clin Nurs. 2004, 13: 304-315. 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00865.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Johnson FE, Mailker VE: Nurses' adoption of the AWHONN/NANN neonatal skin care project. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews. 2001, 1: 59-67. 10.1053/nbin.2001.21831.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Kirshbaum M, Beaver K, Luker KA: Perspectives of breast care nurses on research dissemination and utilisation. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing. 2004, 8: 47-58. 10.1016/j.cein.2004.01.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuuppelomaki M, Tuomi J: Finnish nurses' views on their research activities. J Clin Nurs. 2003, 12: 589-600. 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00756.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lapierre E, Ritchey K, Newhouse R: Barriers to research use in the PACU. J Perianesth Nurs. 2004, 19: 78-83. 10.1016/j.jopan.2004.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lewis SL, Prowant BF, Cooper CL, Bonner PN: Nephrology nurses' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to using research in practice. Anna J. 1998, 25: 397-405. discussion 406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lynn MR, Moore K: Research utilization by nurse managers: current practices and future directions. Semin Nurse Manag. 1997, 5: 217-223. 10.1046/j.1365-2834.1997.00011.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. McCleary L, Brown GT: Barriers to paediatric nurses' research utilization. J Adv Nurs. 2003, 42: 364-372. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02628.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Mountcastle KM: Barriers to research utilization among clinical nurse specialists. 2003, California State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  62. Oranta O, Routasalo P, Hupli M: Barriers to and facilitators of research utilization among Finnish registered nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2002, 11: 205-213. 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00587.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Patiraki E, Karlou C, Papadopoulou D, Spyridou A, Kouloukoura C, Bare E, Merkouris A: Barriers in implementing research findings in cancer care: the Greek registered nurses perceptions. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2004, 8: 245-256. 10.1016/j.ejon.2003.12.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Retsas A: Barriers to using research evidence in nursing practice. J Adv Nurs. 2000, 31: 599-606. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01315.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Retsas A, Nolan M: Barriers to nurses' use of research: an Australian hospital study. Int J Nurs Stud. 1999, 36: 335-343. 10.1016/S0020-7489(99)00027-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaffer CM: Staff nurse perceptions of barriers to research utilization and administrative supports for research in hospitals. 1994, George Mason University, College of Nursing and Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  67. Sommer SK: An investigation of the barriers and facilitators of research utilization among a sample of registered nurses. 2003, Loyola UniversityGoogle Scholar
  68. Walsh M: How nurses perceive barriers to research implementation. Nurs Stand. 1997, 11: 34-39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Walsh M: Perceptions of barriers to implementing research. Nurs Stand. 1997, 11: 34-37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Walsh M: Barriers to research utilisation and evidence based practice in A&E nursing. Emergency Nurse. 1997, 5: 24-27.Google Scholar
  71. Andersson N, Cederfjall C, Jylli L, Nilsson Kajermo K, Klang B: Professional roles and research utilization in paediatric care: newly graduated nurses experiences. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007, 21: 91-97. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00435.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Atkinson M, Turkel M, Cashy J: Overcoming barriers to research in a Magnet community hospital. J Nurs Care Qual. 2008, 23: 362-368.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Brown CE, Wickline MA, Ecoff L, Glaser D: Nursing practice, knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers to evidence-based practice at an academic medical center. J Adv Nurs. 2009, 65: 371-381. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04878.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Chau JP, Lopez V, Thompson DR: A survey of Hong Kong nurses' perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of research utilization. Res Nurs Health. 2008, 31: 640-649. 10.1002/nur.20289.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Deichmann Nielsen L, Pedersen PU: Barrierer for anvendelse af forskning blandt kliniske sygeplejersker (Danish). Sygeplejersken. 2008, 5: 50-54.Google Scholar
  76. Fink R, Thompson CJ, Bonnes D: Overcoming barriers and promoting the use of research in practice. J Nurs Adm. 2005, 35: 121-129.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Karkos B, Peters K: A Magnet community hospital: Fewer barriers to nursing research utilization. J Nurs Adm. 2006, 36: 377-382. 10.1097/00005110-200607000-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Mehrdad N, Salsali M, Kazemnejad A: The spectrum of barriers to and facilitators of research utilization in Iranian nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2008, 17: 2194-2202. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02040.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Niederhauser VP, Kohr L: Research endeavors among pediatric nurse practitioners (REAP) study. J Pediatr Health Care. 2005, 19: 80-89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Oh EG: Research activities and perceptions of barriers to research utilization among critical care nurses in Korea. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2008, 24: 314-322. 10.1016/j.iccn.2007.12.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Paramonczyk A: Barriers to implementing research in clinical practice. Can Nurse. 2005, 101: 12-15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Schoonover H: Barriers to research utilization among registered nurses practicing in a community hospital. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2009, 25: 199-212. 10.1097/NND.0b013e3181ae145f.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Strickland RJ, O'Leary-Kelley C: Clinical nurse educators' perceptions of research utilization: barriers and facilitators to change. J Nurses Staff Dev. 2009, 25: 164-171. 10.1097/NND.0b013e3181ae142b.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Thompson DR, Chau JPC, Lopez V: Barriers to, and facilitators of, research utilisation: a survey of Hong Kong registered nurses. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare. 2006, 4: 77-82. 10.1111/j.1479-6988.2006.00036.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Yava A, Tosun N, Cicek H, Yavan T, Terakye G, Hatipoglu S: Nurses' perceptions of the barriers to and the facilitators of research utilization in Turkey. Appl Nurs Res. 2009, 22: 166-175. 10.1016/j.apnr.2007.11.003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Thompson DS, O'Leary K, Jensen E, Scott-Findlay S, O'Brien-Pallas L, Estabrooks CA: The relationship between busyness and research utilization: it is about time. J Clin Nurs. 2008, 17: 539-548. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01981.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Tydén T: The contribution of longitudinal studies for understanding science comunication and research utilization. Science Communication. 1996, 18: 29-38. 10.1177/1075547096018001002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L: Knowledge to action: evidence-based health care in context. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Gravel K, Legare F, Graham ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci. 2006, 1: 16-10.1186/1748-5908-1-16.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kajermo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement