常用循证实践模型的交叉分析

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Annette M. Bourgault, Jean W. Davis, Jacqueline LaManna, Dawn Turnage, Norma E. Conner
{"title":"常用循证实践模型的交叉分析","authors":"Annette M. Bourgault,&nbsp;Jean W. Davis,&nbsp;Jacqueline LaManna,&nbsp;Dawn Turnage,&nbsp;Norma E. Conner","doi":"10.1111/ijn.70034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>This article aimed to critically analyse three frequently used evidence-based practice models to determine similarities and differences in their process steps, terminology, tools and implementation models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence-based practice is an essential competency taught across academic nursing curriculums to prepare nurses for problem solving throughout their career in clinical practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A crosswalk analysis was used to compare and contrast the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice Through Close Collaboration (ARCC) Model, the Iowa Model and the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice (JHEBP) Model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Findings suggest that although these models contain similar principles, there are differences in terminology and process steps (both alignment and emphasis), leading to a lack of congruence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Differences in terminology may be confusing to both novice and experienced users of the evidence-based practice process. We suggest that educational and clinical settings adopt a primary evidence-based practice model to use throughout their organization, in addition to purposefully creating awareness of the variety of other models and resources available, including their similarities and differences.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14223,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Crosswalk Analysis of Commonly Used Evidence-Based Practice Models\",\"authors\":\"Annette M. Bourgault,&nbsp;Jean W. Davis,&nbsp;Jacqueline LaManna,&nbsp;Dawn Turnage,&nbsp;Norma E. Conner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijn.70034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>This article aimed to critically analyse three frequently used evidence-based practice models to determine similarities and differences in their process steps, terminology, tools and implementation models.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Evidence-based practice is an essential competency taught across academic nursing curriculums to prepare nurses for problem solving throughout their career in clinical practice.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A crosswalk analysis was used to compare and contrast the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice Through Close Collaboration (ARCC) Model, the Iowa Model and the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice (JHEBP) Model.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Findings suggest that although these models contain similar principles, there are differences in terminology and process steps (both alignment and emphasis), leading to a lack of congruence.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Differences in terminology may be confusing to both novice and experienced users of the evidence-based practice process. We suggest that educational and clinical settings adopt a primary evidence-based practice model to use throughout their organization, in addition to purposefully creating awareness of the variety of other models and resources available, including their similarities and differences.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Practice\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.70034\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.70034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在批判性地分析三种常用的循证实践模型,以确定其过程步骤、术语、工具和实施模型的异同。基于证据的实践是贯穿学术护理课程的基本能力,为护士在临床实践中解决问题做好准备。设计采用人行横道分析方法,比较和对比通过密切合作推进研究和临床实践(ARCC)模型、爱荷华模型和约翰霍普金斯循证实践(JHEBP)模型。研究结果表明,尽管这些模型包含相似的原则,但在术语和过程步骤(对齐和重点)上存在差异,导致缺乏一致性。术语的差异可能会使新手和有经验的循证实践过程的用户感到困惑。我们建议教育和临床机构在整个组织中采用主要的循证实践模型,并有意识地提高对其他各种可用模型和资源的认识,包括它们的异同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Crosswalk Analysis of Commonly Used Evidence-Based Practice Models

Aims

This article aimed to critically analyse three frequently used evidence-based practice models to determine similarities and differences in their process steps, terminology, tools and implementation models.

Background

Evidence-based practice is an essential competency taught across academic nursing curriculums to prepare nurses for problem solving throughout their career in clinical practice.

Design

A crosswalk analysis was used to compare and contrast the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice Through Close Collaboration (ARCC) Model, the Iowa Model and the Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice (JHEBP) Model.

Results

Findings suggest that although these models contain similar principles, there are differences in terminology and process steps (both alignment and emphasis), leading to a lack of congruence.

Conclusions

Differences in terminology may be confusing to both novice and experienced users of the evidence-based practice process. We suggest that educational and clinical settings adopt a primary evidence-based practice model to use throughout their organization, in addition to purposefully creating awareness of the variety of other models and resources available, including their similarities and differences.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
85
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: International Journal of Nursing Practice is a fully refereed journal that publishes original scholarly work that advances the international understanding and development of nursing, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The Journal focuses on research papers and professional discussion papers that have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Preference is given to high-quality papers written in a way that renders them accessible to a wide audience without compromising quality. The primary criteria for acceptance are excellence, relevance and clarity. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信