在实践中实施研究成果的障碍

Adriana Mayela Cárdenas Cortés, María Aracely Márquez Vega
{"title":"在实践中实施研究成果的障碍","authors":"Adriana Mayela Cárdenas Cortés, María Aracely Márquez Vega","doi":"10.35667/metasenf.2023.26.1003082175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: to identify the barriers for the application of research in practice, by Nursing academics and university students.Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional study, including n=27 academics (all the eligible staff) and n= 229 Nursing students randomly selected. A questionnaire on sociodemographic and training data was administered, and the Barriers scale, which integrates characteristics of the professional, characteristics of the organization, quality of research, presentation and accessibility of information; and the perception that the amount of research is “overwhelming”. A higher score from 1 to 4 shows the higher degree in which each factor is perceived as a barrier.Results: the study included 17 academics and 229 students. In the group of academics, the most identified barriers were: “Nursing staff does not feel they have enough authority in order to change the care for a patient” (mean= 3.17; SD= 0.80) and “The Nursing staff sees limited benefits in research for their professional activity” (mean= 3.11; SD = 0.85). On the other hand, the most identified barriers in the student group were: “The amount of research information is overwhelming” (mean= 2.36; SD= 1.23) and “The premises are not adequate for its implementation”. Academics identified a significantly higher number of barriers than students (p< 0.001) for all factors, except for Quality of research (p= 0.676).Conclusions: there was a prevalence of barriers for the use of research associated with the characteristics of the organization and the professionals, which coincided with those reported by other studies conducted with Nursing professionals and/or students.","PeriodicalId":387967,"journal":{"name":"Metas de Enfermería","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barreras en la implementación de los resultados de investigación en la práctica\",\"authors\":\"Adriana Mayela Cárdenas Cortés, María Aracely Márquez Vega\",\"doi\":\"10.35667/metasenf.2023.26.1003082175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: to identify the barriers for the application of research in practice, by Nursing academics and university students.Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional study, including n=27 academics (all the eligible staff) and n= 229 Nursing students randomly selected. A questionnaire on sociodemographic and training data was administered, and the Barriers scale, which integrates characteristics of the professional, characteristics of the organization, quality of research, presentation and accessibility of information; and the perception that the amount of research is “overwhelming”. A higher score from 1 to 4 shows the higher degree in which each factor is perceived as a barrier.Results: the study included 17 academics and 229 students. In the group of academics, the most identified barriers were: “Nursing staff does not feel they have enough authority in order to change the care for a patient” (mean= 3.17; SD= 0.80) and “The Nursing staff sees limited benefits in research for their professional activity” (mean= 3.11; SD = 0.85). On the other hand, the most identified barriers in the student group were: “The amount of research information is overwhelming” (mean= 2.36; SD= 1.23) and “The premises are not adequate for its implementation”. Academics identified a significantly higher number of barriers than students (p< 0.001) for all factors, except for Quality of research (p= 0.676).Conclusions: there was a prevalence of barriers for the use of research associated with the characteristics of the organization and the professionals, which coincided with those reported by other studies conducted with Nursing professionals and/or students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":387967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metas de Enfermería\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metas de Enfermería\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35667/metasenf.2023.26.1003082175\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metas de Enfermería","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35667/metasenf.2023.26.1003082175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨护理学者和大学生对研究成果应用于实践的障碍。方法:采用描述性横断面研究,随机抽取n=27名学者(均为符合条件的教职工)和n= 229名护理专业学生。对社会人口统计和培训数据进行了问卷调查,并编制了障碍量表,该量表综合了专业特征、组织特征、研究质量、呈现方式和信息可及性;以及认为研究数量“势不可挡”的看法。从1到4的分数越高,表明每个因素被视为障碍的程度越高。结果:共纳入17名学者和229名学生。在学者群体中,最常见的障碍是:“护理人员觉得自己没有足够的权力来改变对病人的护理”(平均= 3.17;SD= 0.80)和“护理人员认为研究对其专业活动的益处有限”(均值= 3.11;Sd = 0.85)。另一方面,学生群体中最常见的障碍是:“研究信息的数量是压倒性的”(平均= 2.36;SD= 1.23)和“场地不适合实施”。除了研究质量(p= 0.676)外,在所有因素中,学者发现的障碍数量明显高于学生(p< 0.001)。结论:使用与组织和专业人员的特征相关的研究存在普遍的障碍,这与其他针对护理专业人员和/或学生进行的研究报告相吻合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Barreras en la implementación de los resultados de investigación en la práctica
Objective: to identify the barriers for the application of research in practice, by Nursing academics and university students.Methods: a descriptive cross-sectional study, including n=27 academics (all the eligible staff) and n= 229 Nursing students randomly selected. A questionnaire on sociodemographic and training data was administered, and the Barriers scale, which integrates characteristics of the professional, characteristics of the organization, quality of research, presentation and accessibility of information; and the perception that the amount of research is “overwhelming”. A higher score from 1 to 4 shows the higher degree in which each factor is perceived as a barrier.Results: the study included 17 academics and 229 students. In the group of academics, the most identified barriers were: “Nursing staff does not feel they have enough authority in order to change the care for a patient” (mean= 3.17; SD= 0.80) and “The Nursing staff sees limited benefits in research for their professional activity” (mean= 3.11; SD = 0.85). On the other hand, the most identified barriers in the student group were: “The amount of research information is overwhelming” (mean= 2.36; SD= 1.23) and “The premises are not adequate for its implementation”. Academics identified a significantly higher number of barriers than students (p< 0.001) for all factors, except for Quality of research (p= 0.676).Conclusions: there was a prevalence of barriers for the use of research associated with the characteristics of the organization and the professionals, which coincided with those reported by other studies conducted with Nursing professionals and/or students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perfil sociodemográfico y clínico de mujeres con cáncer de mama en hospital de tercer nivel Eficacia de la práctica de yoga y del ejercicio aeróbico frente al standard of care en pacientes con fibromialgia. Estudio FIB YOGA EA SOC Trabajo a turnos y enfermedades no transmisibles relacionadas con la nutrición La ética del cuidado como marco para la investigación Calidad de vida laboral del personal de Enfermería de un hospital regional de Paraguay durante la pandemia COVID 19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1