Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice: A theory-guided scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnerships have the potential to solve many challenges in evidence-based nursing practice which is crucial for high-quality care. AIMS: To identify the existing knowledge on academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice. METHODS: We conducted this review following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. We performed a comprehensive literature search of nine databases as well as five websites for gray literature. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening and data extraction and analysis. A third researcher was involved when needed. RESULTS: Dedicated time, dedicated resources, and compatible goals were found to be the top three inputs in academic-practice partnerships for evidence-based nursing practice. Meeting and discussion were the most popular forms of activities. Sufficient resources were the most important facilitators. Insufficient resources, insufficient time, and communication issues were the top three barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The assumption proposed in the practice-academic partnership logic model (i.e., inputs plus activities can lead to outputs and outcomes) was preliminarily verified by the results of this review in the context of evidence-based nursing practice. Academic-practice partnerships can leverage the advantages of both sides to overcome barriers and promote evidence-based nursing practice. However, it is essential to conduct a broader range of high-quality studies. Such endeavors could offer more comprehensive evidence for refining the framework of academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING EDUCATION, PRACTICE, POLICY AND RESEARCH: The "theoretical framework of academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice" could theoretically guide academic and clinical nursing staff to collaborate on evidence-based nursing practice and related research and education programs. The academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice could lead to a win-win situation for both the academic and the clinical sides. Furthermore, the results of this study provide an evidence-based foundation for policymakers to develop supportive policies for academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice.

Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education: A theory-guided scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a scoping review of the existing literature regarding academic-practice partnership in evidence-based nursing education, with the goal of gathering evidence to support the establishment of such partnerships. BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnerships play a crucial role in overcoming separation of theory and practice in evidence-based nursing education and promoting the adoption of evidence-based nursing practice. However, there is a lack of scoping review of related literature. DESIGN: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute updated methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, Educational Resource Information Centre (ERIC) and five gray websites between November and December, 2022. A total of 10515 articles were retrieved, 26 articles were included in the scoping review. Two reviewers reviewed the articles, screened literature, and extracted data, independently. A third researcher was involved when consensus is needed. Practice-academic partnership logic model was used to analysis and synthesis the results. RESULTS: Main themes included inputs (time, instructional resources, partnership agreement, key stakeholder commitment, shared mission, leadership support, common vision, instructional design, mutual respect, and instructional objectives), activities (ongoing communication and shared decision-making), outputs (action plan: evidence-based nursing project plans and educational resources), outcomes (improved evidence-based nursing competency, enhanced quality of nursing care, career advancement and personal development, increased evidence-based nursing projects, improve evidence-based nursing education, heightened academic achievement, increased engagement in evidence-based nursing, increased networking opportunities, and improved staff satisfaction), facilitators (sufficient inputs, effective activities, and clear partnership structure, ongoing feedback, and positive outcomes), and barriers (insufficient inputs). CONCLUSIONS: Inputs and activities could lead to outputs and outcomes. Facilitators and barriers could influence the degree of outputs and outcomes. Academic-practice partnerships can overcome the barriers of disconnection between theory and practice in evidence-based nursing education, and further promote education and research by leveraging the strengths of both parties, resulting in a mutually beneficial collaboration.

Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a COSMIN-based scoping review.

AIM: The aim of this scoping review was to evaluate and summarise the measurement properties of nursing research competence instruments and provide a summary overview of the use of nursing research competence instruments. BACKGROUND: Increasing nursing research competence instruments have been developed. However, a systematic review and evaluation of nursing research competence instruments is lacking. METHOD: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute updated methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Reviewers searched articles in Eight English databases and two Chinese databases between April 1st, 2022, and April 30th, 2022. An updated literature search was conducted between March 1st and March 4th, 2023. The literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two reviewers, independently. A third reviewer was involved when consensus was needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology was used to evaluate the methodological quality and measurement properties of the nursing research competence instruments. RESULTS: Ten studies involving eight nursing research competence instruments were included. None of the existing instruments have assessed all measurement properties. A total of 177 empirical studies have utilized a nursing research competence instrument with tested measurement properties. CONCLUSION: 'Self-evaluated Nursing Research Capacity of Questionnaire (refined)' was identified as the most appropriate nursing research competence instrument in existing instruments. However, reviewers need to conduct further measurement properties studies on the existing nursing research competence instruments. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NURSING POLICY: This study could guide the selection of appropriate nursing research competence instruments which could help to evaluate the nursing research competence of nurses and inform the development of intervention plans to enhance nursing research competence.

Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education: Protocol of a theory-guided scoping review.

AIM: This theory-guided scoping review aims to provide an overview of existing literature about academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education. BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnership is an approach to improve evidence-based nursing education, to promote evidence-based nursing practice which could reduce the nursing care discrepancy, improve the nursing care quality and patient safety, reduce healthcare costs and promote nursing professional development. However, the related research is limited and there is a lack of systematic review of related literature. DESIGN: A scoping review guided by the theories of the Practice-Academic Partnership Logic Model and the JBI Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare. METHODS: The researchers will use JBI guidelines for scoping reviews and related theories to guide this theory-guided scoping review. The researchers will systematically search Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Educational Resource Information Centre (ERIC) using major search concepts including academic-practice partnership, evidence-based nursing practice and education. Two reviewers will be responsible for independent literature screening and data extraction. Discrepancies would be solved by a third reviewer. EXPECTED RESULTS: This scoping review will identify related research gaps to provide implications for researchers and identify specific information to provide implications for developing interventions of academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing education. REGISTRATION NUMBER: This scoping review had been registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/83rfj).

Differences in evidence-based nursing practice competencies of clinical and academic nurses in China and opportunities for complementary collaborations: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the evidence-based nursing practice (EBNP) competencies of clinical and academic nurses and their collaboration needs for supporting EBNP. BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnerships have strong potential to overcome the key barriers to EBNP. However, there is little known about the collaboration needs of clinical and academic nurses for EBNP. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHODS: We recruited clinical and academic nurses online during November 2021 to January 2022. Using a reliable and validated scale and adapted questionnaires, data were collected relating to demographic information, EBNP-related resources availability, EBNP competencies and EBNP collaboration needs. These data were described using descriptive statistical methods. The t test, χ2 test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate if the different responses between clinical and academic nurses were statistically significant. This study was reported following the STROBET checklist. RESULTS: Two 240 clinical nurses and 232 academic nurses submitted questionnaires. There was no difference in overall EBNP competence between clinical and academic nurses. However, clinical nurses reported lower levels of competence and stronger intentions to collaborate with academic nurses when searching for, appraising, and synthesising evidence. Academic nurses reported lower levels of competence and stronger intentions to collaborate with clinical nurses for disseminating and implementing evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinical and academic nurses both reported high needs for collaborating to overcome their perceived role limitations. Clinical and academic nurses have different strengths and limitations in EBNP. These role differences and intentions to collaborate for different dimensions of EBNP competence suggest that clinical and academic nursing roles could be complementary to each other, offering opportunities for synergistic collaborations to better support overall EBNP. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Healthcare and academic institutions should promote academic-practice partnerships as opportunities to gain complementary expertise on different dimensions of EBNP, and to improve nurses' competencies and confidence in EBNP overall.

Academic-practice partnerships in evidence-based nursing practice: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Academic-practice partnerships are a promising strategy that could strengthen the promotion and innovation of evidence-based nursing practice (EBNP). However, there is little evidence of how academic and clinical institutions and individuals should collaborate in each process of EBNP and the factors that influence academic-practice partnerships in EBNP. There is a pressing need to explore the extent of the literature on academic-practice partnerships in EBNP, as well as to classify, compare and summarise the results or opinions obtained from various types of literature to identify both existing knowledge and gaps in the research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be conducted following the methodological guidelines provided by the JBI. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Seven databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Educational Resource Information Center and two Chinese databases (ie, CNKI and WANFANG DATA), will be searched. The grey literature will also be searched using the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Nurses Association, Open Grey, Grey Literature Report and the official website of JBI. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two researchers. A third researcher will be involved when a consensus is needed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The findings of the scoping review will be disseminated in a conference and a peer-reviewed journal.