Conectar
Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) enables consistent and effective healthcare that prioritises patient safety. The competencies of advanced practice nurses (APNs) are essential for implementing EBHC because their professional duties include promoting EBHC.
To identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence concerning the EBHC competence of APNs and associated factors.
A systematic review.
CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Medic, ProQuest, and MedNar.
Databases were searched for studies (until 19 September 2023) that examined the EBHC competence and associated factors of APNs were included. Quantitative studies published in English, Swedish and Finnish were included. We followed the JBI methodology for systematic review and performed a narrative synthesis.
The review included 12 quantitative studies, using 15 different instruments, and involved 3163 participants. The quality of the studies was fair. The APNs' EBHC competence areas were categorised into five segments according to the JBI EBHC model. The strongest areas of competencies were in global health as a goal, transferring and implementing evidence, while the weakest were generating and synthesising evidence. Evidence on factors influencing APNs' EBHC competencies was contradictory, but higher levels of education and the presence of an organisational research council may be positively associated with APNs' EBHC competencies.
The development of EBHC competencies for APNs should prioritise evidence generation and synthesis. Elevating the education level of APNs and establishing a Research Council within the organisation can potentially enhance the EBHC competence of APNs.
We should consider weaknesses in EBHC competence when developing education and practical exercises for APNs. This approach will promote the development of APNs' EBHC competence and EBHC implementation in nursing practice.
The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021226578), and reporting followed the PRISMA checklist.
None.
To describe the development of the Actualisation of Evidence-Based Nursing instrument targeted at nurses working in clinical practice (ActEBN-nurses), meant for evaluating the actualisation of individual and organisational-level support structures for evidence-based nursing within social and healthcare organisations, and to test its validity and reliability.
Cross-sectional survey.
The FinYHKÄ model was used as the theoretical background of the instrument development and supplemented with the JBI Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, previous literature and items from a previous instrument, the Evidence-Based Practice Process Assessment Scale, with permission of the copyright holders. After two rounds of expert panel and piloting, a national survey was conducted with the instrument in 2021. The target group consisted of nurses working in clinical practice. Psychometric testing included internal consistency (Omega, item analysis) confirmatory factor analysis and t-test for comparison of two groups' differences (sensitivity).
A new instrument, ActEBN-nurses was developed, comprising two parts: Individual-level (32 items, 5-point Likert-scale) and Organisational-level support structures for evidence-based nursing (37 items, 5-point Likert-scale). In total, 1289 nurses participated in the survey. The ActEBN-nurses proved to have good internal consistency in both parts (Omega ω .931 and .966), structural validity and sensitivity based on the two educational levels within the sample. The structure of both parts was slightly modified, based on the CFA modification indices, considering the impact of the reverse worded items in part Individual and redundant items within both parts.
The ActEBN-nurses has promising psychometrics, and it can be used for evaluating individual and organisational-level support structures for evidence-based nursing within social and healthcare organisations.
Evaluation of the support structures within social and healthcare organisations is needed to recognise shortcomings in current structures and advance evidence-based nursing across different contexts.
The authors state that they have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines: STROBE statement for cross-sectional studies.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 