Introduction
The present article addresses the problem of evidence-based practice (EBP) knowledge, beliefs, and implementation in oncology nurses. The problem is significant for nursing because following EBP protocols improves patient outcomes. Underhill et al. (2015) build an especially persuasive argument for launching EBP initiatives in oncology as it is the field where clinical management is constantly changing due to the emergence of new evidence. The researchers chose a quantitative approach due to its potential in measuring the objective effects of intervention in the study population. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critique of the chosen article, highlighting both its strengths and weaknesses.
Literature Review and Frameworks
The study by Underhill et al. (2015) does not contain an explicit hypothesis statement or research questions. Their absence is justified by the clear and straightforward formulation of research objectives, from which hypotheses and research questions may be easily inferred. In the literature review section, Underhill et al. (2015) mainly utilize recent (publication date no earlier than 2000) studies with experimental or cross-sectional design. In doing so, the researchers provide state-of-art synthesis, highlighting both the existing problem and the proposed solution. The literature sources describe the most significant barriers to implementing EBP and show the efficiency of EBP opportunities at the workplace in promoting the approach. Underhill et al. (2015) opened the article with a clear definition of evidence-based practice, drawing on several sources at once, Later on, they articulated the key framework: Advancing Research and Clinical practice through close Collaboration (ARCC) Model. The research objectives were consistent with the chosen framework as the ARCC is one of the most recognized models for EBP implementation.
Study Design and Methods
Participants have explained the purpose of the study and were allowed to skip any questions. The study was not externally reviewed by an IRB review board; though, Underhill et al. (2015) received permission from ARCC. Respondents were protected by ensuring confidentiality and benefitted from the EBP initiative as it was relevant to their practice. The pretest-posttest survey design fit the study purpose and allowed for comparisons between the results before and after the intervention. Regarding the sample, out of 350 nurses invited to participate in the study, only 30% accepted the invitation, which makes the sample size quite modest. Double-blinding was impossible due to the design of the study; the authors give no information on attrition minimization. All participants came from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, but that is the only information available about the sample: gender, age, and other attributes are not clarified. The sampling design is fairly flawed as conventional sampling does not allow for representativeness. The sample size and the lack of power analysis add to the limitations of the study methodology.
As for data collection and measurement, Underhill et al. (2015) translated conceptual definitions of EBP into operational and measured the key variables using questionnaires. Aside from EBP-B (beliefs) and EBP-I (implementation) questionnaires, the authors used open-ended questions to investigate nurses’ interpretation of barriers to EBP. Underhill et al. (2015) assembled an EBP education subcommittee that identified the needs of the DFCI nursing community. The intervention is described in detail, including the adjustments that have been made to the selected models. The committee was run by two clinical nurse specialists with extensive experience in research and, specifically, data collection.
Results
Underhill et al. (2015) used IBM SPSS statistical software to run a descriptive statistical analysis (box-plots, mean, median, standard deviation, and range) and inferential analysis (t-test). However, there was no mention of controlling for confounding variables nor any measures undertaken to avoid Type I and Type II errors. The missing values were not handled in any particular way, nor is any information available on the intention-to-treat analysis. The results of the analysis were judged using a p-value set at p < 0.05 (confidence interval = 95%). The findings were adequately summarized, though the tables could use a bit higher level of detail. The statistical information can generally be used for meta-analysis, with some adjustments.
Discussion
Underhill et al. (2015) found that the major findings of their study were consistent with the existing body of research. In particular, nurses valued EBP but lacked education and mentorship. The clinical significance of the study is justified by the specifics of oncology nursing. The authors admitted to certain limitations such as the small sample size and incompleteness of some data, which compromised the generalizability of the findings. The researchers mentioned in the abstract that nurses should be provided the mentorship and support to receive relevant EBP education. The implications are reasonable since the level and quality of education correlate with EBP beliefs.
General Issues
In general, the study by Underhill et al. (2015) is well-written and easy to follow, despite the absence of a CONSORT flowchart. The authors show their ability to adhere to academic writing guidelines but create an accessible writing piece for practitioners. One of the highlights of the study structure-wise is its abstract that is broken down into sections for an easier information search. As for the authors’ credibility, four out of five authors hold Ph.D. degrees, all of them are registered, nurses.
Conclusion
Despite some limitations, the study offers valuable findings and practical implications regarding the local establishment of EBP practices. It contributes to the existing body of knowledge by emphasizing the importance of preparing the right environment for EBP implementation, as in promoting formal EBP education and developing advanced nursing roles. Individual nurses should also be aware of existing opportunities to improve their EBP knowledge and train themselves to be EBP advocates and change leaders.
Reference
Underhill, M., Roper, K., Siefert, M., Boucher, J., & Berry, D. (2015). Evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation before and after an initiative to promote evidence-based nursing in an ambulatory oncology setting. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(2), 70-78.