Access, Utilization, and Implementation of Research Among Rehabilitation Nurses: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to understand rehabilitation nurses’ perceptions of research information, related barriers, and avenues for future research, specifically in those caring for individuals with burn injury, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews were conducted.MethodsEighteen interviews were conducted. A thematic network approach identified codes and developed basic, organizing, and global themes.ResultsResearchers identified factors that facilitated research uptake, determined organizational structures that support research culture, and described nurse engagement with literature.ConclusionsAlthough participants desired to engage with the research literature, they identified barriers including time constraints, heavy workloads, and lack of access. To facilitate research uptake, research must be easily accessible, be easily digestible, and include clinical practice recommendations. Research must expand its scope to address issues relevant to the rehabilitation population.Clinical RelevanceOur findings may be used to drive improvements in research competence, facilitate knowledge translation, and support evidence-based practice among rehabilitation nurses.

Incorporating the concept of relevance in clinical rehabilitation research and its reviews may improve uptake by stakeholders

“…Input for these frameworks was derived from (1) the exploratory survey of peer-reviewed and gray literature described earlier; (2) discussions between investigators and students working as part of the Model Systems Knowledge Translation Center, which conducts research to improve long-term functional, vocational, cognitive, and quality-of-life outcomes in individuals living with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn injury 45 ; and (3) feedback received from qualitative interviews with patients, caregivers, and clinicians in the field of rehabilitation. 20 The concepts identified from these sources were transposed into the frameworks to equip researchers with strategies that promote relevance under a traditional research schema for generating studies (i.e., introduction, methods, results, discussion). We recommend that the proposed frameworks undergo iterative review, testing, and validation to better satisfy the needs of the CRR community.…”

“…Authors should also consider the presentation of their methods and results when disseminating findings. If patients comprise the target audience, researchers should include high-level summaries and minimize the complexity of their writing 20 . Allowing for sufficient “white space,” using bullet points, and incorporating smaller tables constitute minor formatting adjustments that facilitate reader comprehension 38 .…”

“…Literature shows that patients, caregivers, and clinicians see the lack of perceived or actual relevance as a key drawback to using CRR literature. 2 , 19 , 20 For example, studies executed without stakeholder input may result in findings that are too narrow or that do not matter to patients. Evaluations of expensive, complex equipment that are relevant to academic medical centers may be inaccessible to clinicians in rural areas.…”

“…If patients comprise the target audience, researchers should include high-level summaries and minimize the complexity of their writing. 20 Allowing for sufficient “white space,” using bullet points, and incorporating smaller tables constitute minor formatting adjustments that facilitate reader comprehension. 38 In contrast, research catered to clinicians should provide enough detail to make replication in various clinical settings feasible.…”

“…Literature shows that patients, caregivers, and clinicians see the lack of perceived or actual relevance as a key drawback to using CRR literature 2,19,20 . For example, studies executed without stakeholder input may result in findings that are too narrow or that do not matter to patients.…”