4.5 Article

Scientific research ability of specialist nurses in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China: A cross-sectional study

Journal

NURSING OPEN
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1868

Keywords

cross-sectional survey; evidence-based practice; influencing factors; nursing research capacity; specialist nurses

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the scientific research ability of specialist nurses in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and its influencing factors. A total of 652 specialist nurses were surveyed from March to October 2021. The research competence was measured using a self-evaluation scale. Factors such as educational background, hospital level, authorship of published papers, and successful research project applications were identified as influencing the research ability score of specialist nurses.
Aim: This study investigated the scientific research ability of Chinese specialist nurses (SNs) in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and its influencing factors. Design: A cross-sectional design. Methods: A total of 652 SNs in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region were investigated from March to October 2021. The nursing scientific research ability level was measured using the Nursing Research Competence of Nurses Self-evaluation Scale. Descriptive statistics, univariate analysis and ordinal logistic regression analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting the scientific research ability of SNs. Results: The median score of scientific research ability of SNs was 31 (interquartile range: 19-41). Approximately 74.8% of clinical speciality nurses had low scientific research ability. Educational background, working hospital level, being the first author of a published paper and successful application for scientific research projects were identified as factors influencing scientific research ability score.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available