The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice

Written on behalf of the European Academy of Nursing Science REFLECTION review group: José Amendoeira, Polytechnic Institute of Santarem, Santarem, Portugal; (…) p.9European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The state of mixed methods research in nursing: A focused mapping review and synthesis

Aims To consider the scope and quality of mixed methods research in nursing. Design Focused mapping review and synthesis. Data sources International Journal of Nursing Studies, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing, and Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Review methods Within the target journals, titles and abstracts from papers published between 2015 and 2018 were searched for the words or derivative words ‘mixed methods’. Additional keyword earches were undertaken using each journal’s search tool. We included studies that investigated nursing and reported to use a mixed methods approach. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full and information was extracted onto a predetermined proforma. Findings across journals were then synthesised to illustrate the current state of mixed methods research in nursing. Results We located 34 articles that reported on mixed methods research, conducted across 18 countries. Articles differed significantly both within and across journals in terms of conformity to a mixed methods approach. Nineteen studies were rated as satisfactory or good as regards our assessment of their execution, with 15 rated as poor. Primarily, a poor rating was due to the absence of an underpinning methodological approach to the study and/or limited detail of the crucial integration phase. Conclusions There is a paucity of published mixed methods research in the higher ranked nursing journals, and when they are published there are limitations in the detail given to the underpinning methodological approach and theoretical explanation. Impact This review provides best practice guidance in conducting and reporting mixed methods nursing research and will help to ensure that nurses’ endeavour in mixed methods research is of the highest quality

The Arctic

peer reviewe

The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice

Background: European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed. Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals. Methods: Systematic review with descriptive results synthesis. Results: We identified 2,220 reports, of which 254, from 19 European countries, were eligible for analysis; 215 (84.7%) were primary research, 36 (14.2%) secondary research, and three (1.2%) mixed primary and secondary. Forty‐eight (18.9%) of studies were experimental: 24 (9.4%) randomized controlled trials, 11 (4.3%) experiments without randomization, and 13 (5.1%) experiments without control group. A total of 106 (41.7%) articles were observational: 85 (33.5%) qualitative research. The majority (158; 62.2%) were from outpatient and secondary care hospital settings. One hundred and sixty‐five (65.0%) articles reported nursing intervention studies: 77 (30.3%) independent interventions, 77 (30.3%) interdependent, and 11 (4.3%) dependent. This represents a slight increase in experimental studies compared with our previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor. Linking Evidence to Action: European research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We call on nursing researchers globally to raise the level of evidence and, therefore, the quality of care and patient outcomes. We urge them to replicate our study in their regions, diagnose reasons for the lack of appropriate research, identify solutions, and implement a deliberate, targeted, and systematic global effort to increase the number of experimental, high quality, and relevant studies into nursing interventions. We also call on journal editors to mandate an improvement in the standards of research reporting in nursing journals.</p

The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research: Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence‐Based Practice

Background European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed. Objective To identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals. Methods Systematic review with descriptive results synthesis. Results We identified 2,220 reports, of which 254, from 19 European countries, were eligible for analysis; 215 (84.7%) were primary research, 36 (14.2%) secondary research, and three (1.2%) mixed primary and secondary. Forty‐eight (18.9%) of studies were experimental: 24 (9.4%) randomized controlled trials, 11 (4.3%) experiments without randomization, and 13 (5.1%) experiments without control group. A total of 106 (41.7%) articles were observational: 85 (33.5%) qualitative research. The majority (158; 62.2%) were from outpatient and secondary care hospital settings. One hundred and sixty‐five (65.0%) articles reported nursing intervention studies: 77 (30.3%) independent interventions, 77 (30.3%) interdependent, and 11 (4.3%) dependent. This represents a slight increase in experimental studies compared with our previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor. Linking Evidence to Action European research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We call on nursing researchers globally to raise the level of evidence and, therefore, the quality of care and patient outcomes. We urge them to replicate our study in their regions, diagnose reasons for the lack of appropriate research, identify solutions, and implement a deliberate, targeted, and systematic global effort to increase the number of experimental, high quality, and relevant studies into nursing interventions. We also call on journal editors to mandate an improvement in the standards of research reporting in nursing journals

Secular and longitudinal trends in cardiovascular risk in a general population using a national risk model: The Tromsø Study

Background Primary prevention guidelines promote the use of risk assessment tools to estimate total cardiovascular risk. We aimed to study trends in cardiovascular risk and contribution of single risk factors, using the newly developed NORRISK 2 risk score, which estimates 10-year risk of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. Design Prospective population-based study. Methods We included women and men aged 45–74 years attending the sixth and seventh survey of the Tromsø Study (Tromsø 6, 2007–2008, n = 7284 and Tromsø 7, 2015–2016, n = 14,858) to study secular trends in NORRISK 2 score. To study longitudinal trends, we followed participants born 1941–1962 attending both surveys (n = 4534). We calculated NORRISK 2 score and used linear regression models to study the relative contribution (%R2) of each single risk factor to the total score. Results Mean NORRISK 2 score decreased and distribution in risk categories moved from higher to lower risk in both sexes and all age-groups between the first and second surveys (p < 0.001). In birth cohorts, when age was set to baseline in NORRISK 2 calculations, risk score decreased during follow-up. Main contributors to NORRISK 2 were systolic blood pressure, smoking and total cholesterol, with some sex, age and birth cohort differences. Conclusion We found significant favourable secular and longitudinal trends in total cardiovascular risk and single risk factors during the last decade. Change in systolic blood pressure, smoking and cholesterol were the main contributors to risk score change; however, the impact of single risk factors on the total score differed by sex, age and birth cohort

The Second Triennial Systematic Literature Review of European Nursing Research : Impact on Patient Outcomes and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice

Background: European research in nursing has been criticized as overwhelmingly descriptive, wasteful and with little relevance to clinical practice. This second triennial review follows our previous review of articles published in 2010, to determine whether the situation has changed. Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals. Methods: Systematic review with descriptive results synthesis. Results: We identified 2,220 reports, of which 254, from 19 European countries, were eligible for analysis; 215 (84.7%) were primary research, 36 (14.2%) secondary research, and three (1.2%) mixed primary and secondary. Forty‐eight (18.9%) of studies were experimental: 24 (9.4%) randomized controlled trials, 11 (4.3%) experiments without randomization, and 13 (5.1%) experiments without control group. A total of 106 (41.7%) articles were observational: 85 (33.5%) qualitative research. The majority (158; 62.2%) were from outpatient and secondary care hospital settings. One hundred and sixty‐five (65.0%) articles reported nursing intervention studies: 77 (30.3%) independent interventions, 77 (30.3%) interdependent, and 11 (4.3%) dependent. This represents a slight increase in experimental studies compared with our previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor. Linking Evidence to Action: European research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We call on nursing researchers globally to raise the level of evidence and, therefore, the quality of care and patient outcomes. We urge them to replicate our study in their regions, diagnose reasons for the lack of appropriate research, identify solutions, and implement a deliberate, targeted, and systematic global effort to increase the number of experimental, high quality, and relevant studies into nursing interventions. We also call on journal editors to mandate an improvement in the standards of research reporting in nursing journals

The state of mixed methods research in nursing: A focused mapping review and synthesis

Aims To consider the scope and quality of mixed methods research in nursing. Design Focused mapping review and synthesis. Data sources International Journal of Nursing Studies, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Worldviews on Evidence Based Nursing, and Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Review methods Within the target journals, titles and abstracts from papers published between 2015 and 2018 were searched for the words or derivative words ‘mixed methods’. Additional keyword earches were undertaken using each journal’s search tool. We included studies that investigated nursing and reported to use a mixed methods approach. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full and information was extracted onto a predetermined proforma. Findings across journals were then synthesised to illustrate the current state of mixed methods research in nursing. Results We located 34 articles that reported on mixed methods research, conducted across 18 countries. Articles differed significantly both within and across journals in terms of conformity to a mixed methods approach. Nineteen studies were rated as satisfactory or good as regards our assessment of their execution, with 15 rated as poor. Primarily, a poor rating was due to the absence of an underpinning methodological approach to the study and/or limited detail of the crucial integration phase. Conclusions There is a paucity of published mixed methods research in the higher ranked nursing journals, and when they are published there are limitations in the detail given to the underpinning methodological approach and theoretical explanation. Impact This review provides best practice guidance in conducting and reporting mixed methods nursing research and will help to ensure that nurses’ endeavour in mixed methods research is of the highest quality

The state of mixed methods research in nursing: A focused mapping review and synthesis.

AIMS To consider the scope and quality of mixed methods research in nursing. DESIGN Focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS). DATA SOURCES Five purposively selected journals: International Journal of Nursing Studies, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, and Journal of Mixed Methods Research. REVIEW METHODS In the target journals, titles and abstracts from papers published between 2015-2018 were searched for the words or derivative words 'mixed methods'. Additional keyword searches were undertaken using each journal's search tool. We included studies that investigated nursing and reported to use a mixed methods approach. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full and information was extracted onto a predetermined pro forma. Findings across journals were then synthesized to illustrate the current state of mixed methods research in nursing. RESULTS We located 34 articles that reported on mixed methods research, conducted across 18 countries. Articles differed significantly both within and across journals in terms of conformity to a mixed methods approach. We assessed the studies for the quality of their reporting as regard the use of mixed methods. Nineteen studies were rated as satisfactory or good, with 15 rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to the absence of stating an underpinning methodological approach to the study and/or limited detail of a crucial integration phase. CONCLUSIONS Our FMRS revealed a paucity of published mixed methods research in the journals selected. When they are published, there are limitations in the detail given to the underpinning methodological approach and theoretical explanation