Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11419306

Misconceptions among nurses about evidence-based practice.

B M Jennings·L A Loan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: To delineate the origins and fundamental tenets of evidence-based practice (EBP) and to enhance understanding of this important term. METHODS: A critical review of the literature pertaining to evidence-based practice from the fields of medicine and nursing, including international reports. FINDINGS: The roots of EBP indicate this term is not a synonym for research utilization but rather is the rubric for a set of epistemologic assumptions. Key components of EBP include evidence hierarchies and systematic reviews. Differences were found between the views of EBP presented in papers published by nurses within the US compared to those published by nurses outside the US. CONCLUSIONS: The literature shows incongruity in the interpretation of the basic tenets of the evidence-based paradigm. Additionally, nurses may underestimate implications of the evidence-based movement. These two problems impede nurses' participation as full partners in the advancement of evidence-based practice. They also represent a call to action to achieve a more standardized framework for advancing EBP in nursing.

Explore related subjects

Attitude of Health PersonnelBiasEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansKnowledgeModels, NursingNursesNursing ResearchPhilosophy, NursingPrejudiceReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B M Jennings, L A Loan. 2001. Misconceptions among nurses about evidence-based practice.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00121.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Practices and attitudes of Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians concerning terminal sedation: a nationwide survey.

PURPOSE: To clarify the frequency of practice of sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients and to identify physicians' attitudes toward sedation. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to 1,436 Japanese oncologists and palliative care physicians with a request to report their practice of and attitudes toward palliative sedation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 697 physicians returned questionnaires (response rate, 49.6%). Use of mild, intermittent-deep, or continuous-deep sedation for physical and psychologic distress was reported by 89% and 64%, 70% and 46%, and 66% and 38%, respectively. In vignettes in which physicians were asked whether they would use sedation for a patient with refractory dyspnea or with existential distress, 14% and 15%, respectively, chose continuous-deep sedation as a strong possibility. Those physicians less confident with psychologic care and with higher levels of professional burnout were more likely to choose continuous-deep sedation. In vignettes in which they were asked whether they use sedation for a patient with depression or delirium, 39% and 31%, respectively, considered psychiatric treatment to be a strong possibility, and 42% and 50% regarded continuous-deep sedation as a potential treatment option. Physicians less involved in caring for the terminally ill and less specialized in palliative medicine were significantly less likely to choose psychiatric treatment. CONCLUSION: Sedation is frequently used for severe physical and psychologic distress of cancer patients. Physicians' clinical experiences with the terminally ill and their levels of professional burnout influence the decisions. Training and education for physicians in regard to end-of-life care and valid clinical guidelines for palliative sedation therapy are necessary.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗