Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice
Exter University, Högskolan i Vestlandet, Norge.
Tromsö universitet.
Malmö universitet.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7934-6949
2018 (English)In: Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, ISSN 1545-102X, E-ISSN 1741-6787, Vol. 15, no 5, p. 333-343Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed.Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals.Methods: Systematic review with descriptive results synthesis.Results: We identified 2,220 reports, of which 254, from 19 European countries, were eligible for analysis; 215 (84.7%) were primary research, 36 (14.2%) secondary research, and three (1.2%) mixed primary and secondary. Forty-eight (18.9%) of studies were experimental: 24 (9.4%) randomized controlled trials, 11 (4.3%) experiments without randomization, and 13 (5.1%) experiments without control group. A total of 106 (41.7%) articles were observational: 85 (33.5%) qualitative research. The majority (158; 62.2%) were from outpatient and secondary care hospital settings. One hundred and sixty-five (65.0%) articles reported nursing intervention studies: 77 (30.3%) independent interventions, 77 (30.3%) interdependent, and 11 (4.3%) dependent. This represents a slight increase in experimental studies compared with our previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor.Linking Evidence to Action: European research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We call on nursing researchers globally to raise the level of evidence and, therefore, the quality of care and patient outcomes. We urge them to replicate our study in their regions, diagnose reasons for the lack of appropriate research, identify solutions, and implement a deliberate, targeted, and systematic global effort to increase the number of experimental, high quality, and relevant studies into nursing interventions. We also call on journal editors to mandate an improvement in the standards of research reporting in nursing journals

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2018. Vol. 15, no 5, p. 333-343
Keywords [en]
evidence-based practice; nurse-midwifery; research methods; systematic review; health care reform; international health
National Category
Nursing
Research subject
Nursing Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-76404DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12320ISI: 000446672700002PubMedID: 30129094OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-76404DiVA, id: diva2:1388934
Available from: 2020-01-28 Created: 2020-01-28 Last updated: 2020-01-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Borglin, Gunilla

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Borglin, Gunilla
In the same journal
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Nursing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf