Staff Nurses’ Use of Research to Facilitate Evidence-Based Practice

Objectives: To determine to what extent RNs in an acute care multihospital system used research findings in their practice; what types of knowledge they used in their practice; and what personal, professional, and organizational factors enhanced or hindered their research utilization.

Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive, online survey design was used. The survey, which asked about use of research findings in practice and evidence-based practice (EBP) participation, was placed on the hospital system intranet. Of the 2,900 RNs invited to participate, 1,112 nurses completed usable surveys, for a response rate of 38%. This article reports findings for 794 of the staff nurses who responded to the survey.

Results: The forms of knowledge that staff nurses reported relying on most were their personal experience with patients, conferences, hospital policies and procedures, physician colleagues, and nursing peers. Although a variety of resources were available for nurses to use in locating research and implementing EBP, respondents reported many of the same barriers that have been reported in other studies over the last two decades: lack of time, lack of resources, and lack of knowledge. Although their attitudes about research utilization and EBP were positive overall, respondents expected unit-based educators and clinical nurse specialists to collect and synthesize the research for them.

Conclusions: These findings are similar to those of other recent studies regarding nurses’ research utilization and EBP. A great deal of work remains to be done if we are to inform, educate, and assist staff nurses in using research and implementing EBP. It may be unrealistic to expect bedside nurses to add these activities to their duties unless they are compensated for the time and have the support of master's or doctorally prepared nurses to serve as EBP coaches and champions.

Read full article:  Staff Nurses’ Use of Research to Facilitate Evidence-Based Practice

 

Yoder, Linda H. PhD, MBA, RN, AOCN, FAAN; Kirkley, Debra PhD, RN; McFall, D. Curk MSN, RN; Kirksey, Kenn M. PhD, RN, ACNS-BC, FAAN; StalBaum, Angela L. MSN, RN; Sellers, Diana MSN, RN

AJN, American Journal of Nursing:

September 2014 - Volume 114 - Issue 9 - p 26–37

doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000453753.00894.29

Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women

Background

Pelvic floor muscle training is the most commonly used physical therapy treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is sometimes also recommended for mixed and, less commonly, urgency urinary incontinence.

Objectives

To determine the effects of pelvic floor muscle training for women with urinary incontinence in comparison to no treatment, placebo or sham treatments, or other inactive control treatments.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1999 onwards), MEDLINE (1966 onwards) and MEDLINE In-Process (2001 onwards), and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 15 April 2013) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials in women with stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (based on symptoms, signs, or urodynamics). One arm of the trial included pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). Another arm was a no treatment, placebo, sham, or other inactive control treatment arm.

Data collection and analysis

Trials were independently assessed by two review authors for eligibility and methodological quality. Data were extracted then cross-checked. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Data were processed as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Trials were subgrouped by diagnosis of urinary incontinence. Formal meta-analysis was undertaken when appropriate.

Main results

Twenty-one trials involving 1281 women (665 PFMT, 616 controls) met the inclusion criteria; 18 trials (1051 women) contributed data to the forest plots. The trials were generally small to moderate sized, and many were at moderate risk of bias, based on the trial reports. There was considerable variation in the interventions used, study populations, and outcome measures. There were no studies of women with mixed or urgency urinary incontinence alone.

Women with SUI who were in the PFMT groups were 8 times more likely than the controls to report that they were cured (46/82 (56.1%) versus 5/83 (6.0%), RR 8.38, 95% CI 3.68 to 19.07) and 17 times more likely to report cure or improvement (32/58 (55%) versus 2/63 (3.2%), RR 17.33, 95% CI 4.31 to 69.64). In trials in women with any type of urinary incontinence, PFMT groups were also more likely to report cure, or more cure and improvement than the women in the control groups, although the effect size was reduced. Women with either SUI or any type of urinary incontinence were also more satisfied with the active treatment, while women in the control groups were more likely to seek further treatment. Women treated with PFMT leaked urine less often, lost smaller amounts on the short office-based pad test, and emptied their bladders less often during the day. Their sexual outcomes were also better. Two trials (one small and one moderate size) reported some evidence of the benefit persisting for up to a year after treatment. Of the few adverse effects reported, none were serious.

The findings of the review were largely supported by the summary of findings tables, but most of the evidence was down-graded to moderate on methodological grounds. The exception was 'Participant perceived cure' in women with SUI, which was rated as high quality.

Authors' conclusions

The review provides support for the widespread recommendation that PFMT be included in first-line conservative management programmes for women with stress and any type of urinary incontinence. Long-term effectiveness of PFMT needs to be further researched.

1. Chantale Dumoulin^1,*,
2. E. Jean C Hay-Smith²,
3. Gabrielle Mac Habée-Séguin³

Editorial Group: Cochrane Incontinence Group

Published Online: 14 MAY 2014

Assessed as up-to-date: 15 APR 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005654.pub3

Read full article:

The Cochrane Library 

Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question: A Key Step in Evidence-Based Practice

This is the third article in a series from the Arizona State University College of Nursing and Health Innovation's Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a problem-solving approach to the delivery of health care that integrates the best evidence from studies and patient care data with clinician expertise and patient preferences and values. When delivered in a context of caring and in a supportive organizational culture, the highest quality of care and best patient outcomes can be achieved.

The purpose of this series is to give nurses the knowledge and skills they need to implement EBP consistently, one step at a time. Articles will appear every two months to allow you time to incorporate information as you work toward implementing EBP at your institution. Also, we've scheduled "Ask the Authors" call-ins every few months to provide a direct line to the experts to help you resolve questions. Details about how to participate in the next call will be published with May's Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step.

Read Full article: Evidence-Based Practice

Stillwell, Susan B. DNP, RN, CNE; Fineout-Overholt, Ellen PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Melnyk, Bernadette Mazurek PhD, RN, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAAN; Williamson, Kathleen M. PhD, RN

AJN, American Journal of Nursing:

March 2010 - Volume 110 - Issue 3 - pp 58-61

doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79