Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

Squires, Janet E; Estabrooks, Carole A; Gustavsson, Petter; Wallin, Lars

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-1

Implementation Science

Table 1 Summary of findings for studies reporting research utilization in general (n = 39 articles)

From: Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

Individual Determinant	First Author	Significance*	Direction and Magnitude	Comment
1. BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES
Perceived support for research	Butler [71]	NS
Attitude toward research	Champion [50]	S	+ (r = .55)
	Estabrooks [31]	S	+ LISREL	Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, belief suspension and in-services
	Hatcher [52]	S	+ (r = .65 - .82)
	Lacey [54]	S	+ (r = .674)
	Prin [56]	S	+ (r = .58)
	Tranmer [57]	S	+ (β = .64)
	Varcoe [61]	S	+ (r = .41)	S for general research use (RUQ); NS for specific practices
	Wells [72]	S	+ (β = 1.62)
Expectation of self to use research	Varcoe [61]	S	+ (r = .51)	With general use of research (not specific findings)
Expressed interest in research	Varcoe [61]	S	+ (r = .50)	With general use of research (not specific findings)
Problem solving ability	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Cosmopoliteness	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Autonomy	Forbes [62]	S	+ (r = 0.08)
	McCloskey [33]	S	+ ( β = 0.135)
Dogmatism	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Activism	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Belief suspension	Estabrooks [31]	S	+ (LISREL)	Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, in-services, belief suspension
Theoretical orientation	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Trust	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Confidence	Wells [72]	NS		Confidence in research related activities (e.g., reading research, discussing research)
Career commitment	Stiefel [60]	S	+ (R² = 0.13)	MANOVA
Perception of nurse as a RU barrier	Bostrom [51]	S	+ (t = 2.512)	Research user reports less individual barriers
Awareness (overall) of practice	Squires [14]	S	+ (β = 2.52)	For 'user of research'
Awareness of practice by regular use	Squires [14]	S	+ (β = 3.49)	For 'user of research'
Research awareness	Wells [72]	NS
Persuaded (believe in) of the practice	Squires [14]	S	+ (β = 2.11)	For 'user of research'
2. INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Current data collection for others	Butler [71]	S	+ (OR = 4.04)
Participation in research-related activities	Berggren [46]	NS
	McCleary [29]	S	+	Test statistic not given
Participation in research as subject	Hatcher [52]	NS
Past use of research	Butler [71]	S	+ OR = 20.0
Job related research activities	Rutledge [49]	S	+ (r = .0673 to .1272)	S for 3 of 8 practices
Participation in research study	Brett [44]	NS
	Nash [55]	NS
Education for research participation	Logsdon [77]	S	+ (r = .32)
Research participation	Tsai [74]	S	+ (r = .3268)
Involvement in research projects	Tranmer [57]	NS
Research experience	Varcoe [61]	S	+ (r = .37)	With general use of research (not specific findings)
Participation in quality management	McCleary [29]	S	+	Test statistic not given
Participation in quality improvement	Wallin [58]	S	+ (X ² = 11.1)
Completion of the research study	Tsai [75]	NS
3. INFORMATION SEEKING
Nursing texts as information	Barta [45]	NS
Nursing journals as information \	Barta [45]	S	+ (t = -2.36)
Education by specialty groups	Barta [45]	NS
Personal experience as information	Squires [14]	S	+ (β = 0.55)	For 'consistent research user'
P&P manual as information	Squires [14]	NS
In-services as a source of knowledge	Squires [14]	NS
Attended education program	Berggren [46]	NS
Critical reading skills	Tranmer [57]	S	+ (β = 0.19)	Pre-test & Post-test respondents combined
Use computer	Wallin [69]	S	+ (β = 0.142)
Time per week on the internet	Wallin [69]	NS
Internet use	Cummings [68]	NS
Have a personal computer	Wallin [69]	NS
Reading activities Read journals
	Berggren [46]	NS
Hours reading journals	Brett [44]	S	+ (r = .163)
	Coyle [47]	NS
	Michel [48]	NS
Number of journals read	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (Z = 2.98)
	Rutledge [49]	S	+ (r = .0901)	1 of 8 practices
	Wells [72]	NS
Reads Heart & Lung	Coyle [47]	S	+ (X ² = 3.795)
	Michel [48]	S	+ Mann Whitney U = 1422.0
Reads Nursing Research	Brett [44]	S	+ (X ² = 12.422)
	Michel [48]	NS
Reads RN	Brett [44]	S	+ (X ² = 8.925)
Attendance at conferences/in-services	Butler [71]	NS
	Coyle [47]	S	+ (X ² = 5.179)	To total TIAB score
	Estabrooks [31]	S	+ (LISREL)	Chi square = 55.91 p = .263 for model with attitude, belief suspension and in-services
	Michel [48]	S	+ Mann Whitney U = 1291.5
	Rutledge [49]	S	+ (r = .1168)	All 8 practices combined
Hours of continuing education	Brett [44]	NS
	Coyle [47]	NS
Number of study days attended	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (r = .095)
Time spent studying (on duty)	Rodgers [12]	NS
Time spent studying (off duty)	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (r = .1)
MEDLINE usage	Prin [56]	S	+ (r = .2526)
4. EDUCATION
Increasing levels (multiple levels: diploma, bachelors, masters, PhD; post-hoc analysis not provided)	Brett [44]	NS		Diploma, Bachelors, Masters
	Coyle [47]	NS
	Lacey [54]	S	+ (r = .554)
	Logsdon [77]	S	+ (X ² = 7.99)	Willingness to use research to change practice
	Nash [55]	NS
	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (rho = .12)
	Rutledge [49]	S	- All Practices r = -.1205, 3 of 8 practices (.0666-.1158)	Diploma/associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate Suggested in article to be spurious due to multiple tests
Type of degree	Berggren [46]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Brown [70]	S	+ (X ² = 36.1)	Without bachelor's vs. with bachelors vs. graduate degree.
	Bonner [59]	S	+ (H = 11.16) Kruskal wallis	Masters degree versus lower
	Butler [71]	S	+ (OR = 1.75)	Diploma, Bachelors degree (higher for degree)
	Champion [50]	NS		Graduate compared to basic education (BN)
	Erler [46]	NS		For using lit searches in practice and in policies, Diploma versus degree
	Estabrooks [31]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Forbes [62]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	McCleary [29]	S	+ (F = 8.8)	Bachelors vs. community college & graduate vs. community college
	McCloskey [33.34]	S	+ (F = 11.34)	Diploma, Bachelors, Masters
	Michel [48]	S	+ (U = 2345.0)	BSN, MSN
	Ofi [73]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Squires [14]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Stiefel [60]	NS		Bachelors, Graduate degree
	Tranmer [57]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Varcoe [61]	NS		Diploma, Degree
	Wallin [69]	S	+ (r = 0.229)	Diploma, Degree
Working toward a degree	Brett [44]	NS
	Coyle [47]	NS
Current enrolment	Brett [44]	NS
Well prepared in education process	Logsdon [77]	S	+ (r = .32)	With willingness to change ones practice based on research
Number of degrees	Brett [44]	NS
Courses attended	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Completion of research class(es)	Brett [44]	NS
	Coyle [47]	NS
	McCleary [30]	S	+ (t = 2.9)
	Nash [55]	NS
	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (Mann Whitney U = 4.44)
Completion of statistics course	Butler [71]	NS
Completion of research design course	McCleary [29]	S	+ (t = 3.9)
	McCleary [30]	S	+ (t = 3.5)
Number of statistics courses taken	Wells [72]	S	+ (β = 0.48)
Years since basic education	Brett [44]	NS
Years since last degree	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Taught a topic based on research	Rodgers [12]	S	+ (Mann Whitney U = 4.93)
Having project 2000 training	Parahoo [35]	NS
5. PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Full or part-time status	Butler [71]	NS
	Wallin [69]	S	+ (β = 0.228)	For work full time
Years employed as an RN	Butler [71]	NS
	Champion [50]	NS
	Coyle [47]	NS
	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	McCleary [29]	NS
	McCloskey [34]	NS
	Michel [48]	NS
	Rodgers [12]	NS
	Squires [14]	S	+ (β = 0.07)	For 'consistent research user'
	Stiefel [60]	S	+ (r = .22)
	Tranmer [57]	NS
	Wallin [69]	NS
Years in post (hospital)	Tranmer [57]	NS
Current role	Berggren [46]	NS		Staff midwife or midwifery sister
	Bonner [59]	S	+ Kruskal Wallis (H = 12.67)	Nurse unit managers and consultant report more use than staff nurses
	Butler [71]	S	+ (OR = 5.01)	Those in leadership or advanced roles report more use than staff nurses
	Connor [66]	NS
	Hatcher [52]	S	+ (t = 5.57)	Those in leadership of advanced roles report more use as compared to staff nurses
	McCloskey [33, 34]	S	+ (F = 7.901)	Management position or advanced practice nurses vs. staff nurses
	Rodgers [12]	NS		Charge nurse vs. staff nurse
	Wallin [69]	S	- (β = -0.395)	Staff nurse versus other (staff nurses use less research)
	Wells [72]	NS		Staff nurse, nurse manager
Clinical specialty	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Michel [48]	NS
	Forbes [62]	S	+ ANOVA (F = 5.370	Higher RU for critical care nurses as compared to medical/surgical or obstetrical/gynecological
	Humphris [53]	S	+ X ² (test value not reported)	Greater number of diabetic nurse specialists implement specific findings into practice as compared to the non-nurse specialist group
	Nash [55]	S	+ ANOVA (F = 2.35)	Area worked (highest RU mean to lowest): Education, other, hospital inpatient, outpatient clinic, office
	Parahoo [36]	S	+ (X ² = 3.79)	Medical vs. surgical nurses
	Squires [14]	S	- (β = -0.42)	Med-surg compared to critical care unit (med-surg use less than CC)
	Stiefel [60]	S	+ (Wilk's lambda = 0.76, F = 2.23)	Critical care higher RU than medicine, surgery, oncology
	Wright [78]	NS		Analyzed groups by practice area (general hospital, psychiatric hospital, or community mental health)
Number of memberships held	Coyle [47]	NS
Oncology nursing society status	Rutledge [49]	S	- 2 of 8 practices (-.068, -.080)
Oncology certification	Rutledge [49]	NS
CFRN certification	Erler [76]	S	+ (X ² = 9.6 - use research literature); (x ² = 11.2 - translate findings into policies and procedures)
Job satisfaction	Coyle [47]	S	+ (r = .18)
	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Berggren [46]	NS
	Forbes [62]	S	+ (r = 0.13)
	Wallin [69]	S	+ (β = 0.264)
Emotional exhaustion	Cummings [68]	S	- (magnitude varied by context)	Coefficients significant but model not. High context estimated effect = -.109; partially high context estimated effect = -.191; partially low context estimated effect = -.334; low context estimated effect = -.251
Stress	Forbes [62]	S	- (r = -0.13)	Personal job stress: Juggling expectations of other professionals and of clients
	Forbes [62]	S	- (r = -0.08)	Situational job stress: Issues such as equipment, time, and staffing
Affiliation	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Dependant care hours	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Hours/week worked	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Wallin [69]	NS
Shift usually worked	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Shift satisfaction	Estabrooks [31]	NS
National certification	Stiefel [60]	NS
6. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
Age	Berggren [46]	NS
	Butler [71]	NS
	Champion [50]	NS
	Cummings [68]	NS
	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Lacey [54]	NS
	McCleary [29]	NS
	Rodgers [12]	NS
	Wallin [69]	NS
Married or partnered/Marital status	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Family income	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Health/lifestyle activity	Estabrooks [31]	NS
Gender	Estabrooks [31]	NS
	Stiefel [60]	NS
	Wallin [69]	NS

*Significance: NS = not significant, S = significant at p < 0.05

Back to article page

ISSN: 1748-5908

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com