↓ Skip to main content

When east meets west: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in Hunan China

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
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
When east meets west: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in Hunan China
Published in
BMC Nursing, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12912-018-0295-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Gifford, Qing Zhang, Shaolin Chen, Barbara Davies, Rihua Xie, Shi-Wu Wen, Gillian Harvey

Abstract

Research into evidence-based practice has been extensively explored in nursing and there is strong recognition that the organizational context influences implementation. A range of barriers has been identified; however, the research has predominantly taken place in Western cultures, and there is little information about factors that influence evidence-based practice in China. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to evidence-based practice in Hunan province, a less developed region in China. A descriptive qualitative methodology was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff nurses, head nurses and directors (n = 13). Interviews were translated into English and verified for accuracy by two bilingual researchers. Both Chinese and English data were simultaneously analyzed for themes related to factors related to the evidence to be implemented (Innovation), nurses' attitudes and beliefs (Potential Adopters), and the organizational setting (Practice Environment). Barriers included lack of available evidence in Chinese, nurses' lack of understanding of what evidence-based practice means, and fear that patients will be angry about receiving care that is perceived as non-traditional. Nurses believed evidence-based practice was to be used when clinical problems arose, and not as a routine way to practice. Facilitators included leadership support and the pervasiveness of web based social network services such as Baidu () for easy access to information. While several parallels to previous research were found, our study adds to the knowledge base about factors related to evidence-based practice in different contextual settings. Findings are important for international comparisons to develop strategies for nurses to provide evidence-based care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 21%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Lecturer 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,012,809
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#430
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,293
of 328,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.