Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Sigma Theta Tau International, Wiley

Journal description

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.

Current impact factor: 2.32

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 2.318
2012 Impact Factor 1.349
2011 Impact Factor 1.239
2010 Impact Factor 1.429
2009 Impact Factor 1.944
2008 Impact Factor 1.294
2007 Impact Factor 1.167

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 1.85
Cited half-life 5.20
Immediacy index 0.52
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.49
Website Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing website
Other titles Worldviews on evidence-based nursing (Online), Worldviews on evidence-based nursing
ISSN 1545-102X
OCLC 54840930
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • On author's personal website, institutional repositories, arXiv, AgEcon, PhilPapers, PubMed Central, RePEc or Social Science Research Network
    • Author's pre-print may not be updated with Publisher's Version/PDF
    • Author's pre-print must acknowledge acceptance for publication
    • On a non-profit server
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher source must be acknowledged with citation
    • Must link to publisher version with set statement (see policy)
    • If OnlineOpen is available, BBSRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC authors, may self-archive after 12 months
    • If OnlineOpen is available, AHRC and ESRC authors, may self-archive after 24 months
    • Publisher last contacted on 07/08/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Wiley'
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A systematic review of evidence is the research method which underpins the traditional approach to evidence-based health care. As systematic reviews follow a rigorous methodology, they can take a substantial amount of time to complete ranging in duration from 6 months to 2 years. Rapid reviews have been proposed as a method to provide summaries of the literature in a more timely fashion. The aim of this paper is to outline our experience of developing evidence summaries in the context of a point of care resource as a contribution to the emerging field of rapid review methodologies. Evidence summaries are defined as a synopsis that summarizes existing international evidence on healthcare interventions or activities. These summaries are based on structured searches of the literature and selected evidence-based healthcare databases. Following the search, all studies are assessed for internal validity using an abridged set of critical appraisal tools. Once developed, they undergo three levels of peer review by internal and external experts. As of November 2014, there are 2458 evidence summaries that have been created across a range of conditions to inform evidence-based healthcare practices. In addition, there is ongoing development of various new evidence summaries on a wide range of topics. Approximately 60-70 new evidence summaries are published every month, covering research in various medical specialty areas. All summaries are updated annually. Systematic reviews, although the ideal type of research to inform practice, often do not meet the needs of users at the point of care. This article describes the development framework for the creation of evidence summaries, a type of rapid review. Although evidence summaries may result in a less rigorous process of development, they can be useful for improving practice at the point of care. © 2015 Sigma Theta Tau International.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 05/2015; DOI:10.1111/wvn.12094/abstract
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 08/2014; 11(5). DOI:10.1111/wvn.12055
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 03/2009; 6(1):44-48. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2009.00146.x
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 06/2007; 4(2):116-119. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00092.x
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 03/2007; 4(1):60-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00080.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Regularly accessing information that is current and reliable continues to be a challenge for front-line staff nurses. Reconceptualizing how nurses access information and designing appropriate decision support systems to facilitate timely access to information may be important for increasing research utilization. DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGY: An outcomes-focused knowledge translation framework was developed to guide the continuous improvement of patient care through the uptake of research evidence and feedback data about patient outcomes. The framework operationalizes the three elements of the PARIHS framework at the point of care. Outcomes-focused knowledge translation involves four components: (a) patient outcomes measurement and real-time feedback about outcomes achievement; (b) best-practice guidelines, embedded in decision support tools that deliver key messages in response to patient assessment data; (c) clarification of patients' preferences for care; and (d) facilitation by advanced practice nurses and practice leaders. In this paper the framework is described and evidence is provided to support theorized relationships among the concepts in the framework. IMPLICATIONS: The framework guided the design of a knowledge translation intervention aimed at continuous improvement of patient care and evidence-based practice, which are fostered through real-time feedback data about patient outcomes, electronic access to evidence-based resources at the point of care, and facilitation by advanced practice nurses. The propositions in the framework need to be empirically tested through future research.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(1):3-13. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00073.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The nurse shortage is increasing in the developed world. Organisational context is important in determining issues associated with nurse shortages, such as retention, recruitment, and job satisfaction. Recent research has utilised the Nursing Work Index-Revised (NWI-R) as a measure of organisational context traits. Within the NWI-R a four-factor model has been reported as being important in determining good organisational context, yet researchers have recently questioned the stability of the four-factor structure. No known study has attempted to replicate the four-factor structure reported in the NWI-R. The aim of this research is to examine the factor structure of the 15 items that comprise the four factors of the NWI-R. The NWI-R is an instrument that is focused on capturing organisational attributes that characterise professional nursing environments. A random sample of 172 (50%) acute care hospital nurses completed the NWI-R as part of a larger research project. The sample was diverse concerning nursing grade and specialty. Data were analysed using SPSS.11.0 to extract factors' structures (principal component and maximum likelihood), measures of homogeneity and descriptive statistics were generated from the findings. The four-factor structure of the NWI-R was not replicated in the data analysis. Instead a modified three-factor structure was identified accounting for 57% of the variance. Measures of internal consistency were acceptable. Previous research utilised the four factors of the NWI-R as a method to identify supportive organisational context and practice. The three-factor model raises questions regarding the stability of the findings using the NWI-R. This research shows the synthesis of the two models in light of previous findings. The findings might have far reaching implications for research that has utilised the NWI-R as a measure of organisational context. Further research is required to examine this study's findings and literature.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(1):30-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00076.x
  • 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. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00077.x
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(2):67-8. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00083.x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Making evidence-based practice (EBP) a sustained reality is a difficult endeavor. This relates, among other factors, to lack of sufficient research upon which to base implementation efforts. Alternative sources of evidence therefore need to be considered, particularly where organizational level EBP is the goal. In this article a brief evaluation of a service-based initiative with the aim of obtaining insights regarding multiple types and levels of EBP-related outcomes is described. A structured, retrospective improvement evaluation was conducted. Semi-structured interviews and available documents were chosen to obtain information regarding outcomes, perceived spread of reported individual changes, and factors related to the degree of progress. Underlying the method is an evaluation model that shows a progressive set of EBP outcomes at both individual and group levels. Evaluative results, although limited by several factors, provided credible and sufficient internal evidence for this organization's leadership team to build upon past efforts and refine their approach to integrating research utilization (RU) throughout the department of nursing. For example, the evaluation indicated a set of RU outcomes at the individual nurse level not previously considered and also indicated limitations and challenges to full achievement of initial project-related goals. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The evaluation provided suggestive internal evidence regarding potential benefits of one component of a long-term, valued EBP initiative. However, the evaluation also raised questions regarding structural aspects of this initiative; identified barriers to progress; provided information for dialogue and planning; and highlighted future needs for a proactive, systematic evaluation and a documented trail of data related to all EBP program goals. For those in settings with similar characteristics and aims that have not built in such a prospective evaluation for EBP initiatives, this evaluative project can be assessed for its applicability.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(4):187-99. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00097.x
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 02/2007; 4(3):164-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00100.x
  • [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. DOI:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00074.x