The construct of research utilization is multi-faceted. Several indicators of research utilization were identified, which can be used to augment existing or develop a new and improved measure that taps both instrumental and conceptual use.

Our findings illustrate a difficulty in explicitly demarcating between CRU and PRU in clinical nursing. We suggest this overlap is related to conceptual incoherence, indicating a need for further studies. The findings constitute new knowledge about the RU concepts in a clinical nursing context, and highlight differences in how the concepts can be understood by RNs in clinical practice and experts within the field. We suggest that the findings are useful for defining RU in nursing and further development of measures of RU.

No abstract

It is a well known problem that research findings do not reach the point of care delivery to the desired extent and increasing knowledge about research utilization is therefore urgent. The concept of research utilization is however used and interpreted in different ways which makes comparisons between studies and disciplines difficult. The aim of this study was to clarify the concept of research utilization by examining clinicians' perceptions and descriptions of it. Nine focus groups were carried out with direct and non-direct nursing care providers. Definitions of instrumental/direct and conceptual/indirect research utilization were presented to the participants. The results highlight that different individuals have diverse perceptions of the same concept and that there are risks of misconceptions of research utilization. The participants' descriptions and examples of instrumental and conceptual research utilization support the interpretation that these forms interact with each other and that research utilization is taking place along a continuum between these two forms. Based on the findings a proposal on how to conceptualize research utilization in the Swedish language is offered.