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

AbstractBackgroundEuropean 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.ObjectiveTo identify, appraise, and synthesize reports of European nursing research published during 2013 in the top 20 nursing research journals.MethodsSystematic review with descriptive results synthesis.ResultsWe 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 fro m 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 ou r previous review (18.9% vs. 11.7%). The quality of reporting remained very poor.Linking Evidence to ActionEuropean research in nursing remains overwhelmingly descriptive. We cal...

Source: Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing - October 9, 2018 Category: Nursing Authors: David A. Richards, Tove Aminda Hanssen, Gunilla Borglin Tags: Evidence Review Source Type: research