No abstract

Background:According to professionalization in nursing profession, the nursing researches expanded dramatically and rapidly in a very short period. Research results showed improvement in quality of provided care by using research findings. But there is still a gap between nursing research and practice, which led scientists to explore the barriers and facilitators of research utilization that could affect the application of research results. The aim of this review was to appraise and synthesize evidences of studies about the facilitators and barriers to research utilization in Iranian nurses.Material and Methods:A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies about the barriers and facilitators of nursing research utilization in Iran was undertaken.Results:The results showed that items such as “The nurse is isolated from knowledgeable colleagues with whom to discuss the research,” “There is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas,” “The nurse does not have time to read research,” “The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures,” “The facilities are inadequate for implementation,” “Physicians will not cooperate with implementation,” and “The relevant literature is not compiled in one place” were rated as the main barriers.Conclusions:The results of 10 studies about research utilization in Iran showed that the barriers and facilitators remained constant through time and across different locations. The rank orders of barriers and facilitators were the same approximately. The nurse managers and administrators could utilize the findings of this review to allocate human resources and other sources and promote nursing research utilization in clinical field.

No abstract

Background & Aim: Clinical practice is an important part of the educational curriculum of nursing students. Effective and dynamic interactions among the students, health care providers, instructors, and the clinical environment and its elements affect their professional development. The aim of this report as a part of a more extensive research is describing the negative experiences of nursing students in the clinical environment. Material & Methods: It was a qualitative study. Data was collected by purposeful sampling from two new graduated staff nurses and 12 undergraduate nursing students in two large nursing and midwifery schools through in-depth semi-structured individual interviews during their clinical placements and after graduation. The data was analyzed using the Strauss and Corbin version (1998) of grounded theory method. Results: Vertical violence was emerged as one of the significant findings of the study. Its manifestations included humiliation, blaming, not being accepted, exploitation, discrimination, bullying, limited learning opportunities and lack of support in the clinical environment. The main origin of these behaviors was mostly nurses and clinical instructors. Conclusion: The findings revealed the non-supportive climate of clinical settings. Nursing students were vulnerable during learning in the clinical setting. Identification and proper management of the issues and challenges faced by nursing students in the clinical environment can provide a welcoming climate for younger colleagues of the profession.

Background The institutionalization of evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) is complex and complicated. It is complex because it has many players and is complicated because its institutionalization will require many changes that will be challenging to make. Like many other issues, strengthening EIHP needs a road map, which should consider challenges and address them through effective, harmonized and contextualized strategies. This study aims to develop a road map for enhancing EIHP in Iran based on steps of planning. Methods This study consisted of three phases: (1) identifying barriers to EIHP, (2) recognizing interventions and (3) measuring the use of evidence in Iran's health policy-making. A set of activities was established for conducting these, including foresight, systematic review and policy dialogue, to identify the current and potential barriers for the first phase. For the second phase, an evidence synthesis was performed through a scoping review, by searching the websites of benchmark institutions which had good examples of EIHP practices in order to extract and identify interventions, and through eight policy dialogues and two broad opinion polls to contextualize the list of interventions. Simultaneously, two qualitative-quantitative studies were conducted to design and use a tool for assessing EIHP in the third phase. Results We identified 97 barriers to EIHP and categorized them into three groups, including 35 barriers on the “generation of evidence” (push side), 41 on the “use of evidence” (pull side) and 21 on the “interaction between these two” (exchange side). The list of 41 interventions identified through evidence synthesis and eight policy dialogues was reduced to 32 interventions after two expert opinion polling rounds. These interventions were classified into four main strategies for strengthening (1) the education and training system (6 interventions), (2) the incentives programmes (7 interventions), (3) the structure of policy support organizations (4 interventions) and (4) the enabling processes to support EIHP (15 interventions). Conclusion The policy options developed in the study provide a comprehensive framework to chart a path for strengthening the country’s EIHP considering both global practices and the context of Iran. It is recommended that operational plans be prepared for road map interventions, and the necessary resources provided for their implementation. The implementation of the road map will require attention to the principles of good governance, with a focus on transparency and accountability.

No abstract

Background and AimsThe COVID‐19 pandemic has presented significant challenges to clinical research, necessitating the adoption of innovative and remote methods to conduct studies. This study aimed to investigate these challenges and propose solutions for conducting clinical research during the pandemic.MethodsA narrative review was conducted (approval ID: IR.AMS.REC.1401.029), utilizing keyword searches in PubMed and Web of Science (WOS) citation index expanded (SCI‐EXPANDED) from January 2020 to January 2023. Keywords included COVID‐19, clinical research, barriers, obstacles, facilitators and enablers.ResultsOut of 2508 records retrieved, 43 studies were reviewed, providing valuable insights into the challenges and corresponding solutions for conducting clinical research during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The identified challenges were categorized into four main groups: issues related to researchers or investigators, issues related to participants and ethical concerns, administrative issues, and issues related to research implementation. To address these challenges, multiple strategies were proposed, including remote monitoring through phone or video visits, online data collection and interviews to minimize in‐person contact, development of virtual platforms for participant interaction and questionnaire completion, consideration of financial incentives, adherence to essential criteria such as inclusion and exclusion parameters, participant compensation, and risk assessment for vulnerable patients.ConclusionThe COVID‐19 pandemic has significantly impacted clinical research, requiring the adaptation and enhancement of existing research structures. Although remote methods and electronic equipment have limitations, they hold promise as effective solutions during this challenging period.

Background Nurses, as multidisciplinary Diabetic Foot Care (DFC) team members, need to be trained in DF prevention and management. Regarding the increasing use of e-learning educational courses as the new learning strategy with potential benefits among health care providers, this study attempted to evaluate the educational effects of an e-learning course on DFC compared to that of an interactive workshop in the related knowledge attainment. Methods This was a quasi-experimental study compared two non-randomized groups consisting of nurses who attended an elearning course (intervention group) and a face-to-face interactive workshop (control group) on DFC using a pre-and post-test design. The eligible nurses enrolled by convenience sampling. All five e-modules on DF prevention and care were the same for both groups. A P value of <0.05 was considered as significant. ResultsThe study findings indicated that both e-learning course and interactive workshop increased DFC knowledge among nurses. There is a significant difference between the learning level (after training) in the intervention and control groups (P < 0.01). Conclusions The findings suggest that the e-learning course of DF could be as effective as conventional educational methods. However, considering the time, cost savings and providing an opportunity to learn anytime and anywhere, of the e-learning course, it is recommend for the future and required that more health care providers be trained to use of distance learning.