Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (WORLDV EVID-BASED NU )

Publisher: Sigma Theta Tau International, Blackwell Publishing


The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is now pleased to introduce its new journal - Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. A quarterly, peer-reviewed, journal and information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International and Blackwell Publishing, the journal will uniquely bridge knowledge and application taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management.

  • Impact factor
    Show impact factor history
    Impact factor
  • 5-year impact
  • Cited half-life
  • Immediacy index
  • Eigenfactor
  • Article influence
  • Website
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing website
  • Other titles
    Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online), Worldviews on evidence-based nursing
  • ISSN
  • OCLC
  • Material type
    Document, Periodical, Internet resource
  • Document type
    Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Blackwell Publishing

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • Some journals impose embargoes typically of 6 or 12 months, occasionally of 24 months
    • no listing of affected journals available as yet
  • Conditions
    • See Wiley-Blackwell entry for articles after February 2007
    • Publisher version cannot be used
    • On author or institutional or subject-based server
    • Server must be non-commercial
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged with set statement ("The definitive version is available at ")
    • Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on payment of additional charge
    • 'Blackwell Publishing' is an imprint of 'Wiley-Blackwell'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This column shares the best evidence‐based strategies and innovative ideas on how to facilitate the learning of EBP principles and processes by clinicians as well as nursing and interprofessional students. Guidelines for submission are available at‐6787
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 08/2014; 11(4).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Reviews of nursing research have suggested that most is descriptive; with no more than 15% providing strong evidence for practice. No studies have examined this from the perspective of nursing research conducted in Europe.Objective The aim of this study was to review reports of European clinical nursing research in the top 20 nursing journals in 2010 to establish a baseline of nursing research activity in the year immediately prior to the launch of a European Science Foundation network to increase the proportion of intervention research in Europe.Methods We identified eligible reports that were then data-extracted by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through pair discussion and independent arbitration. We appraised and synthesized topics, methods, and the extent to which studies were programmatic. We synthesized data as proportions of study reports meeting our a priori categorization criteria.ResultsWe identified 1995 published reports and included 223 from 21 European countries, of which 193 (86.6%) reported studies of primary research only, 30 (13.5%) secondary research, and three (1.4%) a mix of primary and secondary. Methodological description was often poor, misleading, or even absent. One hundred (44.8%) articles reported observational studies, 87 (39.0%) qualitative studies. We found 26 (11.7%) articles reporting experimental studies, 10 (4.5%) of which were randomized controlled trials. We found 29 (13.0%) reports located within a larger program of research. Seventy-six (34.1%) articles reported studies of nursing interventions.Linking Evidence to ActionEuropean research in nursing reported in the leading nursing journals remains descriptive and poorly described. Only a third of research reports concerned nursing interventions, and a tiny proportion were part of a programmatic endeavor. Researchers in nursing must become better educated and skilled in developing, testing, evaluating, and reporting complex nursing interventions. Editors of nursing journals should insist on systematic reporting of research designs and methods in published articles.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 03/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: The primary purpose of this study was to identify research priorities for nurses and midwives across the Health Service Executive (HSE) North West region. The rationale for the study was underlined during meetings of HSE North West Directors of Nursing and Midwifery in January 2011. It was agreed that a more strategic approach to generating synergy among nursing and midwifery research, evaluation, and evidence-based practice should be developed through the Nursing and Midwifery Planning and Development Unit. Methods: The research design was founded upon collaborative processes for consensus building that included the Delphi technique and nominal group technique. The study sample included a panel of experts. Data were collected between March 2011 and December 2011. Findings: Findings from this study validate the efficacy of the research methodology in enabling the effective identification of priority areas for research. These include: (a) an evaluation of the impact of postgraduate nursing and midwifery education programs focusing upon patient, professional, and organizational outcomes; (b) development and evaluation of an effective culture of nurse- and midwife-led audit across all services within a Regional Health Trust in Ireland; (c) an examination of the efficacy of approaches to clinical supervision within the context of the Irish health system;(d) an evaluation of the impact of an Advanced Nurse Practitioner role in supporting the effective management of long-term conditions within the context of Regional Health Trust primary care settings in Ireland; and (e) Supporting and developing an ethical framework for nursing and midwifery research within a Regional Health Trust in Ireland. Linking Evidence to Action: It is anticipated that future work, outlined within this paper, will lead to important improvements in patient care and outcomes. Furthermore, this study provides evidence that a strong nursing and midwifery research agenda can be established upon genuine collaborations and partnerships across varying levels of research knowledge and skills, but with a shared purpose and shared values.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 01/2014;
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 01/2009; 6(1):44-48.
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(1):51-3.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The interest in finding ways to bridge the gap between nursing research and implementation of findings into practice has been increasing. Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) may be a bridge between frontline nurses and current developments in practice. While several researchers have studied the use of evidence by nurses in general, no known studies have been focused specifically on the use of evidence by CNSs. The purpose of this pilot study was to develop an understanding of the sources, nature, and application of evidence used by CNSs in practice and to investigate the feasibility of conducting a qualitative study focused on the CNS role in relation to evidence use in practice. This pilot study is a descriptive exploratory design in the qualitative paradigm. Seven CNSs from a large Western Canadian health region were interviewed. Interview transcripts were reviewed for recurrent themes about sources of evidence, evidence use, and barriers and facilitators to evidence use. CNSs access and use evidence from a variety of sources. All CNSs indicated that research literature was a primary source of evidence and research was used in decision-making. Peers and experience were also important sources of evidence. CNSs used the Internet extensively to consult research databases, online sources of evidence, and to contact peers about current practice. CNSs also gathered evidence from frontline nurses, healthcare team members, and families before decision-making. The choice of evidence often depended upon the type of question they were attempting to answer. Barriers cited by CNSs support previous research and included lack of time, resources, and receptivity at clinical and organizational levels. Facilitators included peers, organizational support, and advanced education. CNSs in Canada have advanced education and clinical expertise and many are employed in roles that permeate organizational management and clinical nursing care. It is suggested that qualitative research in naturalized settings that investigates the role of CNSs in relation to the dissemination of evidence in nursing practice needs attention.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):86-96.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incontinence of both bladder and bowel is a major health care problem and adversely affects the lives of many people living at home or in health service facilities. The prevalence and severity of incontinence is a global concern that has, in recent years, prompted investigation across several countries. Current approaches to continence care indicate an emphasis on safety and reduction of risk, rather than on detailed individualised assessment and management. To show approaches to assessment, diagnosis, and management of urinary and faecal incontinence in two rehabilitation settings for older people in Ireland. The study forms part of a larger 2-year case study to identify the determinants of practice "context" that enable or hinder proactive approaches to promoting continence and the treatment of incontinence in rehabilitation settings for older people. The Royal College of Physicians Audit Scheme was used to record the assessment and management of urinary and faecal incontinence. This scheme also includes questions regarding resources available to enable effective continence management. Over 6 months, 220 patients who suffered from incontinence participated in two study sites: a 78-bed rehabilitation unit in Northern Ireland and an 80-bed rehabilitation unit in Southern Ireland. Findings indicated that 60% of incontinent patients had urinary incontinence, 3% faecal incontinence, and 37% mixed urinary and faecal incontinence; however, a specific continence assessment and specific rationale for treatment decisions or continuation of care were lacking. The focus was on continence containment rather than on proactive management. The examination of resources available for continence promotion and management showed that even though guidelines for continence management were available to staff in one unit, there was a dearth of appropriate education or support for staff in continence care. Because incontinence remains an issue for older people and the clinical implications of sustained incontinence are multifaceted, strategies should focus on the development of practice towards evidence-based multidisciplinary approaches to continence promotion and management.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(4):179-86.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the project was to develop an electronic information gathering and dissemination system to support both nursing-sensitive outcomes data collection and evidence-based decision-making at the point-of-patient care. With the current explosion of health-related knowledge, it is a challenge for nurses to regularly access information that is most current. The Internet provides timely access to health information, however, nurses do not readily use the Internet to access practice information because of being task-driven and coping with heavy workloads. Mobile computing technology addresses this reality by providing the opportunity for nurses to access relevant information at the time of nurse-patient contact. A cross-sectional, mixed-method design was used to describe nurses' requirements for point-of-care information collection and utilization. The sample consisted of 51 nurses from hospital and home care settings. Data collection involved work sampling and focus group interviews. In the hospital sector, 40% of written information was recorded onto "personal papers" at point-of-care and later transcribed into the clinical record. Nurses often sought information away from the point-of-care; for example, centrally located health records, or policy and procedure manuals. In home care, documentation took place in clients' homes. The most frequent source of information was "nurse colleagues." Nurses' top priorities for information were vital signs data, information on intravenous (IV) drug compatibility, drug references, and manuals of policies and procedures. Implications: A prototype software system was designed that enables nurses to use handheld computers to simultaneously document patients' responses to treatment, obtain real-time feedback about patient outcomes, and access electronic resources to support clinical decision-making. Conclusion: The prototype software system has the potential to increase nurses' access to patient outcomes information and evidence for point-of-care decision-making.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):69-77.
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(4):177-8.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postnatal mental health problems range from transient psychological problems to depression, anxiety, psychosis, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Debriefing is a structured psychological intervention to prevent postnatal psychological problems, particularly PTSD and depression. Many UK maternity service providers have established postnatal debriefing services, in some cases supported by policy, despite a lack of robust evidence. In this article, current evidence of the effectiveness of postnatal debriefing and the availability and current provision of debriefing offered in UK maternity services is described. A structured literature review was undertaken. Eight randomized controlled trials were conducted to evaluate debriefing or counseling interventions in childbirth settings, and seven studies were done to evaluate debriefing or counseling interventions provided within UK maternity services or describe the availability of such services. Results of six RCTs were that no differences in outcomes were found, one report indicated possible harm from debriefing, and two indicated a positive association related to a psychological intervention. Methodological issues might account for differing trial outcomes. No standard intervention was used in any RCTs or service interventions. Confusion apparently exists in use of the term "debriefing" in UK maternity service policy and practice. Although service evaluations showed that women valued opportunities to discuss their birth, evidence to support the content and timing of service provision and effectiveness of this was lacking. It might be appropriate to consider offering women an opportunity to discuss their childbirth experience and to differentiate this discussion from the offer of a formal debriefing, which is unsupported by evidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE/CONCLUSION: Midwives and other health care professionals who provide opportunities for women to talk about childbirth should be clear about terms used to describe the intervention, as well as the purpose and content of this. Differentiating between women who perceive their experience of childbirth as traumatic and those who develop symptoms of PTSD (for whom specific treatment may be required) is important. All health care professionals should be aware of the signs and symptoms of mental health problems after birth, which may include depression, anxiety, or psychosis in addition to PTSD.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):97-105.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Integration of research evidence into clinical nursing practice is essential for the delivery of high-quality nursing care. Leadership behaviours of nurse managers and administrators have been identified as important to support research use and evidence-based practice. Yet minimal evidence exists indicating what constitutes effective nursing leadership for this purpose, or what kinds of interventions help leaders to successfully influence research-based care. (1) To describe leadership activities of nurse managers that influence nurses' use of research evidence; and (2) to identify interventions aimed at supporting nurse managers to influence research use in clinical nursing practice. A search of electronic databases was conducted for studies on behaviours or activities of nurse managers/administrators and the use of research evidence by nurses. Sifting, screening, and quality assessments were done by two reviewers. Results were synthesized by study type (quantitative and qualitative) and reported. Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (eight quantitative, four qualitative). Three activities were found in quantitative studies that influenced nurses' use of research: managerial support, policy revisions, and auditing. Qualitative studies showed organizational issues as barriers to managers' abilities to affect research use, while role modeling and valuing research facilitated research use. Four studies, one of which was experimental, included an intervention to support managers, but all had insufficient information about leadership development. To date, important descriptive work highlights the strategic role managers have in research transfer. Both facilitative and regulatory activities appear to be necessary for managers to influence research use. These findings have important implications for evolving theoretical models describing factors that affect the process of research utilization. It is time to move the science forward and test a hypothesis linking leadership to outcomes. Qualitative methods are essential for understanding the process of leadership for research transfer.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(3):126-45.
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):112-5.
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(3):123-5.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital-acquired deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolisms (PE) are preventable problems that can increase mortality. Early assessment and recognition of risk as well as initiating appropriate prevention measures can prevent DVT or PE. The purpose of this research project was to develop a DVT risk assessment tool and test the tool for validity and reliability. Three phases were undertaken in developing and testing the JFK Medical Center DVT risk assessment tool. Investigation and clarification of risk and predisposing factors for DVT were identified from the literature, expert nursing knowledge, and medical staff input. Second, item development and weighting were undertaken. Third, parametric testing for content validity measured the differences in mean assessment tool scores between a group of patients who developed DVT in the hospital and a demographically similar group who did not develop DVT. Interrater reliability was measured by having three different nurses score each patient and compare the differences in scores among the three. Findings: The DVT group had significantly higher scores on the JFK DVT assessment scale than did those who did not experience DVT. Interrater reliability showed a strong correlation among the scores of the three nurses (.98). Providing a valid and reliable tool for measuring the risk for DVT or PE in hospitalized patients will enable nurses to intervene early in patients at risk. Basing DVT risk assessment on the evidence provided in this study will assist nurses in becoming more confident in recognizing the necessity for interventions in hospitalized patients and decreasing risk. Nurses can now evaluate patients at risk for DVT or PE using the JFK Medial Center's risk assessment tool.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(1):14-20.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whilst considerable activity has been related to guideline development for nurses regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management, no attempt has been made to comparatively evaluate these guidelines against some form of quality indicators. To compare and contrast four national pressure ulcer guidelines, and identify similarities and differences in their quality and content. An international comparative appraisal method, using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) instrument, was undertaken to appraise four published pressure ulcer guidelines. Two further domains were added to the AGREE instrument to assess comparability of the guidelines and their perceived contribution to practice. An international group undertook the comparative appraisal. The domain scores for each guideline show some but not total agreement among reviewers. One particular set of guidelines was identified as scoring highest in a majority of AGREE domains. Overall, evidence of variability exists between pressure ulcer guidelines and common areas of development to consider for all guidelines. The results raise many questions concerning the "best" pressure ulcer guideline to use, particularly related to the AGREE scoring. Some notable shortcomings exist in all the pressure ulcer guidelines reviewed and these shortcomings need to be addressed from a quality perspective. However, other issues such as style of reporting and potential contribution to practice might more fully affect choice by practitioners as opposed to guideline developers. Notable differences exist among the four guidelines that are possibly explained by different approaches to development and also because of different cultural factors and intentions for use. Whilst the AGREE tool identifies the quality of the guideline development process it still requires local engagement with practitioners to determine which guideline should be implemented.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(1):40-50.
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):106-11.

Related Journals