IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i1-2p274-283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nurses' evidence‐based practice knowledge, attitudes and implementation: A cross‐sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Naji Alqahtani
  • Kyeung M. Oh
  • Panagiota Kitsantas
  • Margaret Rodan

Abstract

Aim and Objectives To examine the influence of staff nurses’ individual factors on knowledge, attitudes and implementation of evidence‐based practice in Saudi Arabia and to identify facilitators and barriers to evidence‐based practice implementation. Background Evidence‐based practice has been considered as a key for healthcare quality measure. The literature, however, shows that nurses worldwide are not implementing evidence‐based practice as expected and recommended by governing agencies. In Saudi Arabia, evidence‐based practice implementation has not been addressed sufficiently. Design A cross‐sectional, correlational design was used. We have complied with the guidelines of STROBE Checklist in presenting this research. A convenience sample of staff nurses (n = 227) was selected from four hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The survey questions included the Evidence‐based Practice Questionnaire and individual factors. Data were analysed using multiple linear regression models. Results Attitudes towards evidence‐based practice had the highest mean followed by evidence‐based practice knowledge and implementation means. Evidence‐based practice training and research involvement were associated with knowledge in the bivariate and multivariate analyses. None of the individual factors were associated with attitudes. However, knowledge was associated with attitudes. Knowledge and attitudes influenced evidence‐based practice implementation positively. Unexpectedly, receiving evidence‐based practice training made it more difficult for nurses to participate in evidence‐based practice implementation process. We found that attitudes partially mediated the relationship between knowledge and evidence‐based practice implementation. Conclusion Nurses in Saudi Arabia are willing to be involved in the evidence‐based practice process. However, nurses identified that they need to improve their knowledge and skills in order to be active participants in the process. Relevance to clinical practice Organisations and nursing leadership may benefit from developing a comprehensive strategy to promote staff nurses’ involvement in the evidence‐based practice process through providing continuing education and mentoring programmes about evidence‐based practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Naji Alqahtani & Kyeung M. Oh & Panagiota Kitsantas & Margaret Rodan, 2020. "Nurses' evidence‐based practice knowledge, attitudes and implementation: A cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 274-283, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:1-2:p:274-283
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15097
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15097?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Gómez-Sánchez & Carmen Sarabia-Cobo & Cristian Chávez Barroso & Amaia Gómez-Díaz & Concepción Salcedo Sampedro & Elena Martínez Rioja & Ingrid Tatiana Romero Cáceres & Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero, 2022. "The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Clinical Application of Evidence-Based Practice in Health Science Professionals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Yanfen Fu & Chunqing Wang & Yan Hu & Eimear Muir‐Cochrane, 2020. "The barriers to evidence‐based nursing implementation in mainland China: A qualitative content analysis," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1038-1046, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:1-2:p:274-283. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.