↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden: a national cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden: a national cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-13-165
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Boström, Ann Rudman, Anna Ehrenberg, Jens Petter Gustavsson, Lars Wallin

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is emphasized to increase the quality of care and patient safety. EBP is often described as a process consisting of distinct activities including, formulating questions, searching for information, compiling the appraised information, implementing evidence, and evaluating the resulting practice. To increase registered nurses' (RNs') practice of EBP, variables associated with such activities need to be explored. The aim of the study was to examine individual and organizational factors associated with EBP activities among RNs 2 years post graduation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Unknown 160 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Other 40 24%
Unknown 48 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 61 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 13%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 50 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,763,911
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,280
of 7,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,044
of 192,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#50
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,833 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.