G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Nursing Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ijns

Review

The state of readiness for evidence-based practice among

nurses: An integrative review
Hannele Saunders a,*, Katri Vehvilainen-Julkunen b
a

Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, POB 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, POB 1627,
70211 Kuopio, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 24 August 2015
Received in revised form 23 October 2015
Accepted 23 October 2015

Objectives: To review factors related to nurses individual readiness for evidence-based

practice and to determine the current state of nurses evidence-based practice competencies.
Design: An integrative review study.
Data sources: Thirty-seven (37) primary research studies on nurses readiness for
evidence-based practice, of which 30 were descriptive cross-sectional surveys, 5 were
pretest-posttest studies, and one study each was an experimental pilot study and a
descriptive qualitative study. Included studies were published from the beginning of 2004
through end of January 2015.
Review methods: The integrative review study used thematic synthesis, in which the
quantitative studies were analyzed deductively and the qualitative studies inductively.
Outcomes related to nurses readiness for evidence-based practice were grouped
according to the four main themes that emerged from the thematic synthesis: (1) nurses
familiarity with evidence-based practice (EBP); (2) nurses attitudes toward and beliefs
about evidence-based practice; (3) nurses evidence-based practice knowledge and skills;
and (4) nurses use of research in practice. Methodological quality of the included studies
was evaluated with Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.
Results: Although nurses were familiar with, had positive attitudes toward, and believed
in the value of EBP in improving care quality and patient outcomes, they perceived their
own evidence-based practice knowledge and skills insufcient for employing evidencebased practice, and did not use best evidence in practice. The vast majority (81%) of
included studies were descriptive cross-sectional surveys, 84% used a non-probability
sampling method, sample sizes were small, and response rates low. Most included studies
were of modest quality.
Conclusions: More robust, theoretically-based and psychometrically sound nursing
research studies are needed to test and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions
designed to advance nurses evidence-based practice competencies, especially teaching
them how to integrate evidence-based practice into clinical decision-making. All efforts
should be focused on systematically using knowledge transformation strategies shown to
be effective in rigorous studies, to translate best evidence into practice-friendly, readily
usable forms that are easily accessible to nurses to integrate into their clinical practice.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Evidence-based practice
Nursing
Knowledge
Clinical competence
Review literature

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 466388983.

E-mail addresses: hannele.saunders@uef. (H. Saunders), katri.vehvilainenjulkunen@uef. (K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018
0020-7489/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

What is already known about the topic?

 Integration of best evidence into clinical care delivery is
essential for improving quality of care and patient
outcomes. However, nurses integration of best evidence
into clinical practice is hindered by a multitude of
complex factors, particularly the lack of nurses individual and organizational readiness for EBP.
 The emphasis on published nursing studies on nurses
individual readiness for EBP has to date been on
descriptive, cross-sectional surveys, primarily exploring
nurses information literacy skills.

What this paper adds

 This review demonstrates that although most nurses
worldwide state they are familiar with, have positive
attitudes toward, and believe in the value of EBP in
improving care quality and patient outcomes, nurses
perceive their own EBP knowledge and skills insufcient
for employing EBP, and do not use best evidence in
practice.
 The vast majority (81%) of included studies were
descriptive cross-sectional surveys, 84% used a nonprobability sampling method, sample sizes were small,
and response rates were low or not reported at all. Most
included studies were of modest methodological quality.
 More robust, theoretically-based and psychometrically
sound nursing research studies are needed to test and
evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to
advance nurses EBP competencies in clinical decisionmaking. Efforts should be focused on systematically
using knowledge transformation strategies shown to be
effective in rigorous studies, to translate best evidence
into practice-friendly, readily usable forms that nurses
actually can use in clinical care delivery.

1. Introduction
Improving patient outcomes and quality and consistency of care through integration of evidence-based
practice (EBP) into daily care delivery is a priority for
healthcare organizations globally (McGinty and Anderson,
2008; Melnyk et al., 2010; Wallen et al., 2010). Systematic
implementation of EBP is essential to improving the
effectiveness and cost-efciency of care (Grol and Grimshaw, 2003; Hart et al., 2008; Melnyk et al., 2012; Pravikoff
et al., 2005). However, it is hampered by a multitude of
reasons (Gifford et al., 2007; Wallen et al., 2010; Wilkinson
et al., 2011), particularly lack of nurses individual and
organizational readiness for EBP, which is further complicated by lack of best evidence in a form that is useful for
and easily translated and integrated into practice (Hallberg, 2006; Harrison and Graham, 2012). As a result,
contrary to the expectation that implementation of EBP
should be the norm in daily practice, the majority of nurses
and other clinicians do not consistently engage in EBP
(Bennett et al., 2003; Fink et al., 2005; Meline and Paradiso,
2003; Melnyk et al., 2012; Wallen et al., 2010).

Although reviews have been previously conducted on

the strategies of EBP implementation using action research
(Munten et al., 2010), the role of nursing leadership in the
EBP implementation process (Sandstrom et al., 2011), and
the instruments used for evaluating education in EBP
(Shaneyfelt et al., 2006) and for assessing nurses EBP
implementation (Leung et al., 2014), they fail to elucidate
the individual determinants of nurses readiness for EBP,
i.e., nurses EBP competencies. Nurses readiness for EBP
encompasses the factors related to nurses capabilities to
engage in EBP and integrate best evidence into daily
practice, such as nurses familiarity with, attitudes toward,
and beliefs about EBP, as well as their EBP knowledge and
skills. Although the body of knowledge on nurses
readiness for EBP has been steadily growing in countries
with a relatively long tradition for conducting EBP research
(Beke-Harrigan et al., 2008; Pravikoff et al., 2005; Ross,
2010; Thiel and Ghosh, 2008; Waters et al., 2009), less is
known about nurses readiness for EBP in countries that
have joined the global EBP movement more recently.
Reviews of primary research studies comprise crosscultural comparisons of study ndings from different
countries which enlarge and enrich the growing international body of knowledge on nurses readiness for EBP, and
thus, contribute to building a more comprehensive, global
understanding of the type of competences that nurses
require to effectively integrate best evidence into daily
healthcare delivery. The purpose of this paper was to
review the individual or personal factors related to nurses
readiness for EBP. Studies included in the review were
published from the beginning of 2004 through January
2015. No such reviews on the topic could be found at a time
of this study.
1.1. Evidence-based practice and the EBP process
Melnyk et al. (2012) dened EBP as an approach to
problem-solving in clinical decision-making which integrates best evidence from robust studies with clinicians
expertise (including external evidence from patient
assessments and practice data) and patients values and
preferences. This denition was selected to dene EBP in
nursing for this review.
Research utilization (RU), or the retrieval, critique,
and use of the research results from a single primary
study, has been called the old paradigm, prior to the
new paradigm of EBP, which is commonly considered
to be a much broader concept including RU and the
integration of summarized and translated best evidence
from several well-dened studies into clinical practice
(Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, 2011). Taylor (2007) also
described RU as a process of critiquing, implementing,
and evaluating research ndings. Stevens et al. (2012)
agreed with the importance of integrating already
critically appraised, summarized and translated best
evidence into clinical decision-making as part of EBP in
nursing, instead of each practicing nurse having to
personally critically appraise, summarize, and translate
best evidence into usable and relevant format for
clinical practice. Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2011)
thus described RU as one component of EBP, whereas

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Polit and Beck (2004) contended that the difference

between RU and EBP lay in their starting points, with RU
beginning with research itself, whereas EBP begins with
formulating a searchable question. Leung et al. (2014)
considered RU to be equivalent to the step of applying
research in practice, out of the ve As or steps of
implementing EBP (Ask, Access, Appraise, Apply, and
Assess) described by Straus et al. (2011). However,
DiCenso et al. contended already in 1998 (p.38) that
advocating the idea of EBP, i.e., that nursing practice
should be based on best possible information, is not
new, but had for the past 20 years primarily been
focusing on identifying barriers to EBP and on strategies
to overcome them, rather than on EBP implementation
and how to make it happen.
However, the process of EBP implementation consists of more than integrating the best available
evidence, clinicians own expertise, and patient preferences into daily clinical decision-making, it also
involves completion of several clearly dened steps
outlined in Table 1.
Due to the complex nature of the multi-step process of
EBP implementation and the multitude of factors inuencing it which are internal and external to nurses,
assessment of nurses uptake and integration of EBP into
daily practice has been challenging (Harrison and Graham,
2012; Matthew-Maich et al., 2013; Saunders, 2015; Wallen
et al., 2010). These internal and external factors have been
referred to as nurses individual and organizational
readiness for EBP. Nurses individual readiness for EBP
includes such factors as nurses familiarity with, attitudes
toward, beliefs about, and knowledge and skills related to
EBP. Organizational readiness for EBP includes such factors
as an organizational culture supportive of EBP, an EBPinfused professional practice environment, and availability
of EBP mentors and nurse leaders within the organization
who are actively supportive of EBP. There is a need to
summarize and synthesize the current research literature
examining the individual or personal factors related to
nurses readiness for EBP.
Table 1
Steps of the combined EBP/KT process and the preferred nursing role to
perform each step of the collaborative EBP process based on EBP
competencies.
Steps of the EBP process

Nursing role

Recognizing evidence needs and dening a

researchable clinical question
2. Searching for, selecting, and
retrieving best evidence
3. Critically appraising and synthesizing
best evidence
4. Translating best evidence into
clinically relevant and
usable form in the local setting
5. Integrating best evidence with
clinicians expertise,
patient preferences and values in clinical
decision-making
6. Evaluating the outcomes of practice change
7. Disseminating the results of practice change

The clinical/
frontline nurse
The EBP mentora
The EBP mentora
The EBP mentora

The clinical/
frontline nurse

The EBP mentora

The EBP mentora

a
The EBP mentor = an Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) or other nurse
with expert-level EBP competencies.

2. Aim
The aim of this integrative review was to summarize
and synthesize the current research literature examining
the individual or personal factors related to nurses
readiness for EBP, i.e., the EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes,
and beliefs of RNs needed to employ EBP in clinical
practice. It addresses the following research question:
What is the state of the science on practicing nurses
readiness for EBP implementation at healthcare organizations?
3. Design
An integrative review of published research on nurses
readiness for EBP, i.e., nurses EBP knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and beliefs needed for nurses to integrate best
evidence into in clinical practice was conducted. The
approach used to summarize and synthesize the current
research literature in this review was previously described
by Thomas and Harden (2008). The review process is
presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement or guideline for reporting study methods and results
(Moher et al., 2009). Synthesis of the results focused on
evaluating the methodological quality of the studies using
the quality appraisal instruments developed by the Joanna
Briggs Institute (JBI) for descriptive, experimental, and
qualitative research studies.
4. Methods
4.1. Literature search
Literature search methods (Torraco, 2005) were used to
conduct searches from May through July 2014 which were
further updated through additional searches during
JanuaryFebruary 2015. The electronic databases
PubMed/MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and the Electronic Theses and
Dissertations System were searched for primary empirical
studies published between the beginning of January 2004
January 31, 2015 without any language restrictions. The
following keywords and terms were used: evidencebased, nurs*, readiness, preparedness, implement*,
experienc*, role*, attitud*, belief*, skill*, view*, and
perception*. With the expert assistance of a university
librarian, these terms were rst searched independently
and then in combination. The search term research
utilization was not used in this review as the aim was
to focus on nurses EBP knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
beliefs. In addition to the searched databases, reference
chasing of the primary research studies included in the
integrative review and hand-searching the lists of contents
of the following peer-reviewed journals was conducted
between the years of 20042014: Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, Journal of Advanced Nursing, BMC
Health Services Research, Journal of Nursing Management,
and Journal of Nursing Administration. These journals
were selected for hand-searching because they had
published the majority of the primary studies focusing

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

on the topic of nurses readiness for EBP yielded by the

systematic literature searches conducted for this review.
4.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the integrative
review are listed in Table 2. Published primary empirical
studies related to evaluating the impact of various
interventions designed to promote practicing nurses
readiness for EBP were included in the review, because
in addition to evaluating the impact of the intervention in
question, they included a baseline or pre-intervention
assessment of nurses readiness for EBP. Studies reporting
on nurses sources of information and barriers to and
facilitators of EBP were excluded because the primary
focus of this review was on the state of EBP knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs, and skills of nurses that enable them to
be ready to engage in EBP implementation in daily practice.
Before undertaking this integrative review, the Cochrane
Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library of Systematic
Reviews, and CINAHL were searched. No published or inprogress systematic reviews on this topic were found.
4.3. Search results and data evaluation
The database searches identied a total of 430
publications. First, titles were screened and those not
clearly indicating a focus on the factors of nurses individual
readiness for EBP were excluded. Second, all remaining
abstracts (N = 98) were screened against the purpose and
inclusion criteria before being selected for further appraisal.
After eliminating a total of 60 records that did not meet one
or more inclusion criteria, the second screening resulted in
38 papers. Six (6) papers were added through referencechasing and hand-searching tables of content of selected
peer-reviewed journals, resulting in a total of 44 papers,
from which data were extracted and independently
evaluated by two researchers. The stages of searching and
the inclusion or exclusion of studies are depicted in Fig. 1.
4.4. Data extraction and assessment of methodological
quality
The following data were extracted: purpose of study,
research design, participants, sample, setting, outcome

measures with reliability and validity, main ndings, and

authors conclusions, which were extracted for each of the
44 papers and organized in a data matrix. Due to their
length, the full tables containing all the extracted data are
published as supporting information for review and online
publication only (please see Table S1 entitled Studies
included in the review for online content, available with
the online version of this article). The process used for data
extraction and evaluation was duplicate, i.e., the data were
independently extracted and evaluated by two reviewers
for inclusion or exclusion. Any differences between the
appraisals were discussed among the two researchers until
a mutual agreement was formed. After achieving consensus, 4 full-text articles were excluded from the review, thus
resulting in a total of 40 papers eligible for the critical
appraisal of methodological quality, the main purpose of
which was to ensure that the included studies conformed
to usual research norms. The criteria used by the two
independent reviewers for appraising the methodological
quality were those in the quality appraisal instruments of
the JBI for descriptive, experimental, and qualitative
research studies. The benchmark for the studies to be
included in this integrative review was set at a total
minimum score of at least 5 out of a total of 9 (descriptive
cross-sectional studies) or out of 10 (experimental or
qualitative studies) points on the respective JBI methodological quality appraisal tool used for each study design,
indicating acceptable scientic rigor. As a result of the
critical appraisal process, another 3 studies were excluded,
as they did not reach the minimum standard set for
methodological quality of the included studies.
4.5. Synthesis and analysis
The synthesis approach used in this review was
previously described by Thomas and Harden (2008). To
answer the primary research question, a total of 37
primary research studies were analyzed. The quantitative
studies were analyzed deductively, examining the individual factors related to nurses readiness for EBP, and the
qualitative studies were analyzed inductively, exploring
different aspects of nurses EBP experiences. After synthesizing the results from all 37 studies, four main themes
emerged: (a) nurses familiarity with EBP; (b) nurses
attitudes toward and beliefs about EBP; (c) nurses EBP

Table 2
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria for the integrative review (N = 37).
Study inclusion criteria

Study exclusion criteria

Studies whose participants are practicing nurses

Studies reporting on EBP model, theory, or framework

development or on questionnaire development, testing, or validation
Studies focusing on the organizational readiness for EBP

Studies measuring practicing nurses readiness for EBP,

i.e., their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and skills,
including information literacy and other EBPrelated skills
Studies published in scientic peer-reviewed journals reporting
on primary empirical studies of any design
Studies related to evaluating the impact of various interventions
designed to promote practicing nurses readiness for EBP
Studies utilizing samples which consisted primarily (>50%)
of practicing nurses
Studies that explored the personal or individual factors
of nurses readiness for EBP implementation

Studies not reporting on primary empirical research studies

Studies whose data was not collected during January 1, 2004January
31, 2015
Studies reporting an extremely low response rate <5%
Studies focusing on nurses sources of information or on barriers to and
facilitators of EBP

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

401 records (titles) identified through

multiple database searches

29 additional records (titles)

identified through other sources

98 records (abstracts) after duplicates and irrelevant

abstracts removed

60 records excluded

6 additional records from manual searches

of reference lists and tables of content

44 full-text articles
assessed for eligibility

4 full-text articles excluded:

-data collected on 2000-02 (2)
-response rate 2.89% (1)
-no inclusion criteria or study
limitations described (1)

40 full-text articles
appraised critically for
methodological quality

3 full-text articles excluded:

-did not meet the criteria for
methodological quality

37 studies included in
the integrative review
Fig. 1. Flowchart presenting an overview of the systematic search and review process.

knowledge and skills; and d) nurses EBP implementation

or use of research in practice.
5. Study characteristics
Of the 37 primary studies included in this review, 30
(81%) used a descriptive cross-sectional survey design, 5
used a pretest-posttest study design, and one study each
used an experimental (pilot) study design (randomised
controlled trial, RCT) and a descriptive qualitative study
design. Approximately one-half (N = 18, 49%) of the
included studies originated from the United States. The
sample sizes of the included studies ranged from N = 21 to
N = 3411 with six of the 37 included studies using a sample
size of under N = 100. Twenty-one (21) of the included
studies used a convenience sample, 7 studies used a
population sample, 5 studies used a random sample, 3
studies used a purposive sample, and 1 study used a both a
convenience and random sample. Response rates of the
quantitative studies varied from 5% to 88%, with 13 studies
reporting response rates of under 50%. In addition, 8 of the
quantitative studies did not report a published response
rate at all, and in 2 studies the authors were unable to
calculate a response rate. Both published and unpublished

instruments were used, and instruments developed by the

authors of the published report to be used in their own
primary study were used in 18 included studies. Factors
related to nurses readiness for EBP were measured using
both general instruments related to nurses EBP competencies, such as the EBP Questionnaire (Upton and Upton,
2005), as well as instruments measuring one specic
aspect of nurses readiness for EBP, such as the EBP Beliefs
Scale (Melnyk, 2007). Selected characteristics of the
included studies (N = 37) are presented in Table 3.
6. Findings
6.1. Participants and practice settings
A total of 18,355 nurses participated in the 37 included
studies. The nurse participants in the included studies
were described in a multitude of ways, as depicted in Table
3. Studies from metropolitan, urban, and rural settings
from 21 different countries were included in this review.
Eleven (11) of the included studies were conducted in a
single hospital setting. The hospital study settings included
acute care hospitals (N = 14), academic medical centers or
university hospitals (N = 4), community hospitals (N = 2),

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

Table 3
Characteristics of the primary studies included in the integrative review
(N = 37).
Characteristics
Country
USA
Europe
Australia
Israel
Iran
Singapore
Number of participants
<100
100499
500999
>1000
Study design
Descriptive cross-sectional survey
Quasi-experimental (pre-post)
Experimental (RCTa)
Qualitative
Response rate
50%
51%
Not reported
Unable to calculate
Sampling method
Probability
Non-probability
Both
Outcomes measuredb
Familiarity with EBP
Attitudes toward EBP
Beliefs about EBP
EBP knowledge and skills
EBP implementation or use of research in practice
Practice settingsc
Hospital care
Primary care
Schools/colleges/universities
Community care
Other
EBP conferences or workshops
National meetings of Prof. organizations
Unspecied

N (%)
18
13
3
1
1
1

(49)
(35)
(8)
(3)
(3)
(3)

6
20
8
3

(16)
(54)
(22)
(8)

30
5
1
1

(81)
(13)
(3)
(3)

13
14
8
2

(35)
(38)
(22)
(5)

5 (13)
31 (84)
1 (3)
12
18
22
28
25
27
7
4
3
3
1
1
1

RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Number of studies; multiple outcomes related to nurses readiness
for EBP measured in most of the primary studies included.
c
Multiple practice settings per study possible.
b

acute care teaching hospitals (N = 2), health service

districts (N = 2), tertiary care medical centers (N = 1),
National Health Service Trusts (N = 1), and day hospitals
(N = 1). Primary care settings included primary care
community health centers (N = 2), ambulatory care clinics
(N = 1), physician practice groups and outpatient services
(N = 1), multipurpose health centers (N = 1), and unspecied primary care settings (N = 2). Community care
included community or home health (N = 2), psychiatric
care (N = 1), and elder care (N = 1). In addition, study
settings included schools (N = 1) and universities and
nursing colleges (N = 3), and other study settings (N = 3).
6.2. Interventions and comparisons
Of the six included studies employing an intervention,
ve used a one-group quasi-experimental (i.e., nonrandomized) pre-post-intervention survey design. Only

one study used an experimental design, i.e., used a second

group for comparison, although it was a randomized
controlled pilot trial. The pilot study utilized an attention
control group which received an educational intervention
on adult physical assessment, while the experimental
group received an educational intervention on EBP and a
mentoring intervention. However, the outcomes of the RCT
were measured over 11 months using repeated measures,
while in the other studies, the post-intervention outcomes
were measured immediately after the intervention. Four
(4) of the studies employing an intervention evaluated the
effectiveness of an educational program on: RNs attitudes
toward and implementation of EBP (Varnell et al., 2008),
RNs attitudes and perceptions of knowledge and skills
toward EBP (Sherriff et al., 2007), nurses perceptions of
knowledge, attitude and skill level related to EBP (Hart
et al., 2008), and RNs EBP beliefs, EBP implementation,
group cohesion, job satisfaction, attrition/turnover rates
and productivity (Levin et al., 2011). Other interventions
tested for effectiveness included a structured multifaceted
mentorship program to implement EBP (Wallen et al.,
2010) and an EBP strategic plan on RNs beliefs of the
importance of EBP, frequency of using EBP in daily practice,
and the perception of organizational readiness for EBP
(Hauck et al., 2012). It is important to keep in mind,
however, that just because nurses may have gained EBP
knowledge and skills as a result of educational interventions, that does not necessarily equate to their integrating
best evidence into their practice (Dalheim et al., 2012).
6.3. Outcomes measured
Outcomes related to nurses readiness for EBP were
measured by using self-report survey measures in 36 of the
37 studies included in this review. In addition, focus groups
(Rolfe et al., 2008; Wallen et al., 2010) and interviews
(Adib-Hajbaghery, 2009; Rolfe et al., 2008) were used in
three of the included studies. Outcomes were grouped
according to the following four main themes that emerged
from the studies included in this review: Nurses
familiarity with EBP (N = 12), nurses attitudes toward
(N = 18) and beliefs about EBP (N = 22), nurses EBP
knowledge and skills (N = 28), and nurses EBP implementation or use of research in practice (N = 25).
6.3.1. Nurses familiarity with EBP
The ndings of the review indicate that nurses were
familiar with the concepts of EBP and EBN regardless of
professional role, practice environment, or nationality
(Adams and Barron, 2009; Adib-Hajbaghery, 2009; Alanen
et al., 2009; Egerod and Hansen, 2005; Filippini et al., 2011;
Pravikoff et al., 2005; Rolfe et al., 2008; Ross, 2010; Thiel
and Ghosh, 2008; Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014;
Thorsteinsson, 2012; Varnell et al., 2008). In the included
studies, nurses familiarity with EBP ranged from 84%
(Ross, 2010) to 42% (Thorsteinsson, 2012). Familiarity with
EBP was associated with nurses use of evidence in practice
(Thorsteinsson, 2012) and primary role, as head nurses,
administrative nurses, and educators were reported to be
more familiar with EBP than clinical nurses (Egerod and
Hansen, 2005; Thorsteinsson, 2012), while unfamiliarity

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

with EBP was associated with level of education (Varnell

et al., 2008). Familiarity with EBP was also associated with
positive attitudes toward and stronger beliefs about EBP
(Alanen et al., 2009; Thorsteinsson, 2012; Varnell et al.,
2008), and was found to predict use of research in practice
(Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014). At the same
time, however, the ndings indicated that there is
widespread confusion among nurses about the meanings
of these concepts, in that nurses have many different
interpretations and divergent understandings of what
constitutes EBP, which often differ from common
denitions of EBP (Breimaier et al., 2011; Egerod and
Hansen, 2005; Rolfe et al., 2008). Adib-Hajbaghery
(2009) asserted that surveyed Iranian nurses viewed
their practice as evidence-based when their care delivery
was in fact based on traditions, routines, their own
experiences, and their view of patients needs, with little
attention paid to patients own values and preferences.
Adams and Barron (2009) reported that although 77% of
the surveyed U.S. school nurses were aware of EBP, only
50% understood it well enough to explain it to a peer.
Rolfe et al. (2008) contended that surveyed UK nurses
considered care delivery based on reection and intuition a form of EBP, as nurses practiced based largely on
what feels to be the right thing at the time (Rolfe et al.,
2008, p. 450).
6.3.2. Nurses attitudes toward and beliefs about EBP
The ndings indicated that nurses consistently reported
favorable attitudes toward and beliefs about EBP, which
they value for improving quality of care and patient
outcomes (Alanen et al., 2009; Cadmus et al., 2008;
Filippini et al., 2011; Hart et al., 2008; Levin et al., 2011;
Melnyk et al., 2004, 2010, 2012; Sherriff et al., 2007;
Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014; Thorsteinsson,
2012; Veeramah, 2004; Waters et al., 2009). Nurses
beliefs in the value of EBP as an important means for
improving healthcare quality and outcomes were positively associated with knowledge of EBP (Thiel and Ghosh,
2008), higher educational level (Koehn and Lehman, 2008;
Thiel and Ghosh, 2008), and EBP experience (Alanen et al.,
2009). Nurses positive attitudes toward EBP were
associated with their EBP knowledge (Veeramah, 2004),
age (Thiel and Ghosh, 2008), higher educational level
(Bonner and Sando, 2007; Koehn and Lehman, 2008; Thiel
and Ghosh, 2008; Varnell et al., 2008), years in nursing
(Thiel and Ghosh, 2008), and use of research in practice
(Alanen et al., 2009; Veeramah, 2004). However, nurses
attitudes were more positive than their EBP knowledge
(Brown et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2009), EBP skills (Waters
et al., 2009), and implementation of EBP (Brown et al.,
2008). Nurse managers and leaders had a more positive
attitude toward EBP than clinical nurses (GonzalesTorrente et al., 2012) or nurses in other positions (Bonner
and Sando, 2007). A graduate degree, RN status, and
attendance at a formal EBP class, predicted positive
attitudes toward EBP (Mollon et al., 2012). However, it
is important to keep in mind that positive attitudes toward
research do not necessarily translate into practice based on
best evidence (Veeramah, 2004); in fact, despite familiarity
with and positive attitudes toward EBP, nurses seldom

participated in EBP activities (Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014).

At least two exceptions to these international trends of
nurses positive attitudes toward and beliefs about EBP can
be found: Pravikoff et al. (2005) asserted that U.S. nurses
do not value or understand research, while Breimaier et al.
(2011) reported an overall negative trend in attitudes
toward EBP among Austrian nurses. Nurses believed that
the majority of clinical practice (Melnyk et al., 2004; Rolfe
et al., 2008; Waters et al., 2009) was based on evidence and
also believed that their colleagues consistently implemented EBP (Melnyk et al., 2012), but their belief in their own
practice being evidence-based was not as strong (Melnyk
et al., 2004). However, nurses do believe that research has
shown EBP to be the best, most effective way to practice
(Rolfe et al., 2008) and that EBP promotes the nursing
profession (Egerod and Hansen, 2005; Eizenberg, 2011),
helps nurses in clinical decision-making (Hart et al., 2008),
and is relevant for other nurses and for them personally
(Adams and Barron, 2009; Breimaier et al., 2011; Egerod
and Hansen, 2005). The extent to which nurses believed
their practice to be evidence-based was associated with
the strength of their EBP beliefs (Melnyk et al., 2004). EBP
beliefs were positively associated with familiarity with EBP
(Varnell et al., 2008), younger age (Alanen et al., 2009),
shorter nursing experience (Alanen et al., 2009), higher
educational level (Varnell et al., 2008), indirect care and
director/leader nurse role (Hauck et al., 2012), greater EBP
implementation (Melnyk et al., 2004, 2010; Thorsteinsson,
2012; Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014; Wallen et al.,
2010), fewer perceived barriers to EBP (Melnyk et al.,
2004), and stronger perceived organizational culture for
EBP (Melnyk et al., 2010). However, nurses EBP beliefs
were higher than their EBP knowledge level (Melnyk et al.,
2004) and their implementation of EBP (Melnyk et al.,
2010). In addition, the EBP skills of searching for and
retrieving information from electronic databases and
discussions about EBP in the clinical setting were found
to predict positive EBP beliefs (Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014).
6.3.3. Nurses perceived EBP knowledge and skills
The ndings revealed that although nurses rated their
EBP knowledge and skills of their peers and colleagues
relatively high (Gerrish et al., 2008; Thorsteinsson, 2012),
their condence in their own EBP knowledge and skills was
less favorable (Cadmus et al., 2008; Egerod and Hansen,
2005; Koehn and Lehman, 2008; Pravikoff et al., 2005;
Sherriff et al., 2007; Thiel and Ghosh, 2008). However,
studies showed that nurses levels of EBP knowledge and
skills varied somewhat from country to country: Nurses
perceived EBP skills were modest (Bostrom et al., 2009),
complete beginner or novice (Dalheim et al., 2012), low
to moderate (Waters et al., 2009), moderate (Koehn and
Lehman, 2008; Majid et al., 2011), or competent (Mollon
et al., 2012). While Adib-Hajbaghery (2009) concluded that
Iranian nurses had little EBP knowledge and skills, Mollon
et al. (2012) found that U.S. nurses EBP skills were
competent for performing most of the steps of the EBP
process. Similarly, there was some variability by country in
nurses EBP knowledge level, which was assessed as low to

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

8

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

moderate (Waters et al., 2009), or moderate (Koehn and

Lehman, 2008; Thiel and Ghosh, 2008). However, nurses
levels of EBP knowledge and skills were found to be lower
than their EBP beliefs (Melnyk et al., 2004; Thorsteinsson,
2012), and lower than their practice and attitudes (Koehn
and Lehman, 2008). Accordingly, several studies concluded
that nurses levels of EBP knowledge and skills were not
sufcient for them to engage in implementing EBP (Egerod
and Hansen, 2005; Hart et al., 2008; Thiel and Ghosh, 2008;
Waters et al., 2009) and to change practice (Sherriff et al.,
2007).
However, the ndings also indicated that nurses do
realize the gaps in their readiness for EBP, and want to gain
more EBP knowledge and skills in order to deliver
evidence-based care (Melnyk et al., 2012). The extent to
which nurses practice was evidence-based was positively
correlated with higher EBP knowledge (Brown et al., 2008;
Melnyk et al., 2004; Veeramah, 2004) and better EBP skills
(Brown et al., 2008; Dalheim et al., 2012; Thorsteinsson
and Sveinsdottir, 2014). Higher education level was
positively associated with greater EBP knowledge (Melnyk
et al., 2012), greater EBP skills (Cadmus et al., 2008; Majid
et al., 2011), and more EBP implementation (Dalheim et al.,
2012; Melnyk et al., 2012). Nurses EBP skills were
positively associated with senior nurse role (Gerrish
et al., 2008) and negatively associated with nurses age
(Cadmus et al., 2008), years in nursing (Gonzales-Torrente
et al., 2012), years since earning a nursing degree
(Thorsteinsson, 2012), and barriers to EBP (Dalheim
et al., 2012). Nurses age and years in nursing were also
negatively associated with barriers to changing practice to
EBP (Dalheim et al., 2012). Senior nurse managers and
other nurse leaders were found to have higher EBP
knowledge than nurses in other positions (Bonner and
Sando, 2007), and also used research in practice more
(Bonner and Sando, 2007). In addition, nurses having a
mentor was positively associated with greater knowledge
of EBP (Melnyk et al., 2004).
6.3.4. Nurses perceived information literacy skills related to
EBP
More than one-half (N = 19) of the 37 included studies
focused on assessing nurses technical research skills
related to EBP, i.e., their information literacy and computer
skills and their research appraisal and interpretation skills.
The ndings indicated that approximately during 2004
2008, nurses workplace online access to the Internet and
electronic databases rapidly improved and became at least
adequate because of increased availability of computers
due to technological advances. Nurses computer skills had
also improved, as lack of computer skills were shown not
to be an issue (Adams and Barron, 2009; Beke-Harrigan
et al., 2008), although nurses higher-level computer skills
were still found to be somewhat lacking (Cadmus et al.,
2008; Thiel and Ghosh, 2008). However, online access
alone to best evidence, or even coupled with adequate
computer skills, does not necessarily mean that nurses will
retrieve and use best evidence in practice (Beke-Harrigan
et al., 2008), for irrespective of nationality, nurses
consistently perceived that they lacked sufcient skills
to search for, retrieve, critically appraise, understand, and

summarize evidence for use in daily practice (BekeHarrigan et al., 2008; Bostrom et al., 2009; Brown et al.,
2008; Cadmus et al., 2008; Dalheim et al., 2012; Gerrish
et al., 2008; Hart et al., 2008; Koehn and Lehman, 2008;
Pravikoff et al., 2005; Ross, 2010; Sherriff et al., 2007;
Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014; Thorsteinsson,
2012; Veeramah, 2004; Waters et al., 2009).
The greatest gaps in technical skills related to EBP
were associated with nurses primary role: Clinical nurses
perceived having most learning needs related to the EBP
skills of identifying research needs and formulating a
researchable question (Bostrom et al., 2009; Brown et al.,
2008; Cadmus et al., 2008; Koehn and Lehman, 2008;
Majid et al., 2011; Ross, 2010; Thorsteinsson, 2012),
searching for and retrieving research reports (BekeHarrigan et al., 2008; Bostrom et al., 2009; Brown et al.,
2008; Dalheim et al., 2012; Hart et al., 2008; Ross, 2010;
Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014; Thorsteinsson,
2012) critically appraising research reports (Bostrom
et al., 2009; Brown et al., 2008; Cadmus et al., 2008;
Dalheim et al., 2012; Gerrish et al., 2008; Koehn and
Lehman, 2008; Mollon et al., 2012; Ross, 2010; Sherriff
et al., 2007; Thorsteinsson, 2012; Veeramah, 2004; Waters
et al., 2009), synthesizing evidence (Mollon et al., 2012;
Ross, 2010; Thorsteinsson, 2012), integrating best evidence into practice (Cadmus et al., 2008; Hart et al., 2008;
Ross, 2010; Thorsteinsson, 2012; Veeramah, 2004) and
evaluating the effect of EBP on clinical care (Adams and
Barron, 2009; Bostrom et al., 2009), while APNs had
learning needs in the EBP skills of undertaking research
and clinical benchmarking (Gerrish et al., 2011). Also
notable was the low participation of nurses in research
(Bonner and Sando, 2007; Cadmus et al., 2008; Ross, 2010;
Thorsteinsson, 2012), as it is an important avenue for
learning the technical research skills related to the steps
of the EBP process. In addition, willingness to undertake
research was linked to increased use of research in practice
(Bonner and Sando, 2007). In addition, several included
studies found that nurses participation in changing
practice based on best evidence was an even greater
learning need than the technical research skills related to
the EBP process, as the studies showed that nurses not only
lacked condence in their ability to change practice, they
also perceived themselves as lacking the autonomy,
authority and support from their managers, peers, and
other colleagues to change practice (Dalheim et al., 2012;
Gerrish et al., 2008; Melnyk et al., 2010; Veeramah, 2004).
6.3.5. Nurses EBP implementation and use of research in
practice
Simply because nurses have positive attitudes toward
and believe in EBP improving clinical practice and patient
outcomes, however, it should not be assumed that they
automatically possess the skills or know how to use
evidence in practice (Cadmus et al., 2008; Waters et al.,
2009), especially when skills only tend to develop through
repeated practice of EBP (Mollon et al., 2012). In fact, the
ndings indicated that irrespective of nationality, nurses
implementation of EBP, i.e., integration of best evidence
into daily care delivery, remained largely undeveloped
(Waters et al., 2009), low (Cadmus et al., 2008; Filippini

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

et al., 2011; Hauck et al., 2012; Melnyk et al., 2010;

Thorsteinsson, 2012), or was at a moderate level at best
(Koehn and Lehman, 2008). Nurses at Magnet institutions
reported more consistent implementation of EBP than
those working at non-Magnet institutions (Melnyk et al.,
2012). EBP knowledge (Brown et al., 2008; Melnyk et al.,
2004), EBP attitudes and beliefs (Alanen et al., 2009; Levin
et al., 2011; Melnyk et al., 2004, 2010; Thorsteinsson and
Sveinsdottir, 2014; Wallen et al., 2010), an organizational
culture perceived to be supportive of EBP (Melnyk et al.,
2010; Wallen et al., 2010), and having an EBP mentor
(Melnyk et al., 2004; Levin et al., 2011; Wallen et al., 2010)
were positively associated with the extent to which nurses
engaged in EBP. A greater proportion of nurses working in
elder care facilities reported implementing EBP than
nurses at hospitals, psychiatric care, or primary care
settings (Bostrom et al., 2009). Nurses with a graduate
degree (Bonner and Sando, 2007; Melnyk et al., 2012;
Mollon et al., 2012; Varnell et al., 2008), a preceptor, higher
clinical grade, advanced practice, indirect care, or nurse
leadership role (Bonner and Sando, 2007; Hauck et al.,
2012; Varnell et al., 2008; Veeramah, 2004), longer nursing
experience (Majid et al., 2011), attendance at a formal EBP
class (Majid et al., 2011; Mollon et al., 2012), and
familiarity with EBP (Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir,
2014) were more likely to report implementing EBP, or
these factors predicted nurses use of research in practice.
7. Discussion
Synthesizing the extracted data for this review and
examining the results of the critical appraisal of methodological quality of the included studies revealed that a
preponderance of studies of modest quality was present
among the included primary studies related to nurses
readiness for EBP. The vast majority of the included studies
were descriptive cross-sectional surveys and used a nonprobability sampling method, sample sizes were relatively
small, and response rates of many of the included studies
were low. In addition, a large proportion of the research
instruments used in the included studies were not
published, not theoretically based, and not psychometrically tested in the studies. Moreover, many assertions were
made in the published research reports related to nurses
readiness for EBP, but few were backed up by actual data
presented in the reports. Further, the critical appraisal of
methodological quality revealed that none of the included
studies received full points and a large proportion of the
descriptive cross-sectional studies (N = 10, 29%) barely
reached the total minimum threshold value of 5 out of 9
points chosen to indicate adequate scientic rigor in this
review.
Despite the modest quality and substantial variation
among the included studies in terms of nurses primary
role, practice setting, and nationality, certain patterns did
emerge from the synthesis. Of particular concern was that
in several of the included studies, the majority of nurses
surveyed never used research ndings to inform their
practice (Breimaier et al., 2011; Ross, 2010), never
searched electronic databases such as CINAHL, Medline,
and Cochrane, although they had access to them (Mollon

et al., 2012; Rolfe et al., 2008; Ross, 2010; Thorsteinsson,

2012), never participated in research (Thorsteinsson,
2012), and never used on-site libraries or asked a librarian
for assistance, although they had access to them (BekeHarrigan et al., 2008; Mollon et al., 2012; Ross, 2010;
Thorsteinsson and Sveinsdottir, 2014). In addition, nurses
rated research ndings from randomized controlled trails
(RCTs) and other quantitative research as the least
important sources of information (Rolfe et al., 2008),
and a large proportion of nurses felt that they seldom
needed best evidence to support their nursing practice
(Beke-Harrigan et al., 2008; Thorsteinsson, 2012). However, the possible link between nurses participation in
research and EBP activities, and their development of
readiness for EBP, i.e., EBP competencies (Bonner and
Sando, 2007; Mollon et al., 2012; Ross, 2010; Thorsteinsson
and Sveinsdottir, 2014), although encouraging, still
requires further investigation.
Conducting the review revealed that use of the
constructs of RU & EBP has been evolving in the
international nursing literature over the last two decades.
From the mid-1990s until approximately 2003, RU was the
construct most often used in primary research studies
related to nurses readiness for EBP; from 2004 to 2007
both RU and EBP were being used; and from approximately
20072008, EBP has clearly been the construct that was
used most often in primary nursing research studies. This
reects a transition from the old paradigm of RU to the
new paradigm of EBP; however, the transition has
happened in terminology only, as both nurses use of
evidence and teaching of EBP to nursing students still
primarily focus on searching for, retrieving, and critically
appraising single primary research studies, i.e., on the old
paradigm of RU, instead of emphasizing the use of already
summarized and critically appraised best evidence, such as
evidence-based CPGs (Melnyk et al., 2008) and care
bundles translated to the local context (Saunders, 2015).
Even in recent primary nursing research studies (Breimaier
et al., 2011; Florin et al., 2012; Wallin et al., 2012), it is not
uncommon for RU and EBP to be used interchangeably as if
they were synonyms, although they are not (Estabrooks,
1999), which further adds to the confusion and lack of
construct clarity about RU and EBP in the literature.
Authors of future research studies should therefore clearly
indicate whether they are focusing on examining nurses
competencies for RU or EBP.
Although most authors have transitioned from RU to
EBP, the results of this review show that there is a lack of
progress in how to make EBP happen, i.e., how to advance
nurses implementation of EBP in daily care delivery. The
ndings indicate that although nurses perceive that they
still do not have the necessary EBP competencies to
integrate EBP into clinical care, they are now more familiar
with, have positive attitudes toward, and believe in the
value of EBP in improving clinical practice and patient
outcomes. In other words, nurses are now more aware of
and open to the idea of EBP and the importance of its
implementation in daily practice. However, as DiCenso
et al. (1998, p. 38) indicated, the recognition of the
importance of evidence-based practice is not new. Nurses
want to deliver care based on best evidence, but they nd

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

10

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

that the best evidence is still not easily accessible or

available in form that is usable in clinical practice. It is
therefore crucially important that nurse leaders and
educators ensure that frontline nurses have unencumbered access to critically appraised and translated best
evidence in a form that is relevant, practical, and adapted
to the local clinical setting, such as evidence-based CPGs
and care bundles.
This review answered the research question about the
state of the science on practicing nurses readiness for EBP
implementation, and made a contribution to knowledge by
summarizing and synthesizing the current research
literature examining nurses individual readiness for
EBP. It also contributed to practice by presenting a more
collaborative approach to EBP implementation and raising
the question of whether we should be focusing on teaching
nurses technical research skills or how to integrate
critically appraised and translated best evidence into their
daily practice.
8. Limitations and strengths
This integrative review has some potential limitations.
First, as in any review, it is possible that some relevant
studies were not identied. However, we systematically
searched multiple electronic databases in collaboration
with a university librarian, reference-chased the primary
research articles included in this review, and handsearched the tables of contents of the peer-reviewed
scientic journals in which the majority of the primary
studies focusing on the topic of nurses readiness for EBP
were published that the systematic literature searches
yielded for this review. As hand-searching the tables of
contents did not result in additional searches, we believe
that our search strategy would effectively capture most of
the relevant primary research studies on this topic.
Second, all the included studies, originating from 14
different countries worldwide, had passed an international peer review and had been published in high-quality
scientic journals. Although the majority of the included
studies originated from English-speaking countries,12 of
the 37 included studies were from non-English-speaking
countries and thus, publication and language biases,
although possible, are unlikely. In addition, two reviewers
independently extracted and evaluated the data for
inclusion or exclusion, and independently appraised the
methodological quality of the included studies, with any
differences were discussed to form a mutual agreement,
all of which increased the reliability of the data. Third, the
search term research utilization was not used for our
review as the aim was to focus on EBP knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and beliefs that practicing nurses need to
employ EBP in clinical practice. However, we acknowledge that it is not uncommon for RU to be discussed in
primary nursing research studies as if it were an
alternative term for EBP, and therefore, we are aware
that some primary studies on the topic at hand may have
been missed by our search. Fourth, the modest methodological quality of the identied studies and the relatively
low quality of reporting of the results may have affected
the results of this review. Finally, effect sizes were not

reported, but were likely to be small, which in turn may

have led to an underpowered approach for detecting the
effects of the interventions for those quasi-experimental
studies that used a pre-post intervention design. Therefore, generalizability is limited, and the results should be
extrapolated with caution.
9. Implications for practice and research
Conducting the review revealed that the majority of
included studies focused on assessing nurses technical
research skills related to EBP. It also revealed that few
nurse scientists to date (Gerrish et al., 2008; Melnyk et al.,
2008; Rolfe et al., 2008) have asserted that there should be
careful consideration on whether the emphasis in
advancing nurses EBP skills should be on equipping each
clinical nurse with the technical research skills of
searching for, accessing, critically appraising, summarizing, and interpreting research ndings, or on teaching
them how to integrate into their daily practice the already
critically appraised and translated best evidence in the
form of CPGs and care bundles adapted to the local
context. The key question holds, do clinical nurses really
need to personally possess all these technical research
skills in their primary role as direct care professionals in
order to be able to implement EBP, i.e., to employ best
evidence in their daily practice with patients? This also
highlights the importance of reecting on the broader
issue of what is the perspective from which nurses EBP
competencies should be advanced, i.e., should frontline
nurses be prepared as competent users of evidence in
clinical practice (i.e., employing EBP), instead of masters
of research skills and generators of research (i.e., engaging
in RU)?
The use of a more collaborative approach to EBP
implementation where the tasks related to the steps of
the EBP process are divided between clinical nurses and
EBP mentors based on their EBP competencies, will make
clinical nurses use and integration of best evidence into
daily practice easier and more feasible to achieve at
hectic practice settings. It will also have direct implications on what nurse leaders, including Advanced Practice
Nurses (APNs) and other EBP mentors, should concentrate on when aiming to strengthen nurses readiness for
EBP, i.e., their EBP competencies. It is essential that nurse
leaders focus on ensuring the required role-mix for EBP
in their local care settings so that those steps of the
collaborative EBP implementation process requiring
knowledge translation and technical research skills
can be performed by nurses with expert-level EBP
competencies, such as APNs and other EBP mentors, as
displayed in Table 1. As a result, clinical nurses will only
need to focus on the two steps of the EBP process that
most concretely meet the needs of clinicians directly
caring for patients: (1) identifying the real-world clinical
problems and questions arising from patient care; and
(2) integrating best evidence into their daily practice
with patients, through accessing the already critically
appraised and translated best evidence in most usable
form in the local context and using it as basis for their
daily clinical decision-making. This type of active

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

collaboration between EBP mentors and clinical nurses

forms a more pragmatic approach to EBP implementation in clinical practice in an environment of limited
resources, yet provides the support clinical nurses need
as they strive to integrate the translated best evidence
into their daily practice. It also makes healthcare
delivery more effective and cost-efcient, because
nurses will be freed to focus on their primary roles
and job functions (e.g., clinical nurses may focus on
direct patient care delivery) and because all nurses will
not be required to spend time and resources to attend
courses on how to personally master all the tasks related
to each step of the EBP implementation process.
Further research is needed to perform cross-cultural
comparisons of RNs readiness for EBP, to test the
effectiveness of educational interventions for advancing
RNs EBP competencies, and to evaluate the effectiveness of
the collaborative approach to the EBP implementation
process in achieving integration of best evidence into
clinical practice.

11

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from Finnish
Nurses Education Foundation, Finnish Nurses Association,
Saastamoinen Foundation, and the Finnish Work Environment Fund awarded to Ms. Saunders, all of which are
gratefully acknowledged. In addition, Ms. Saunders is
supported by a grant for an Early Stage Researcher at the
University of Eastern Finland, Faculty of Health Sciences,
Dept. of Nursing Science, for 20142016.
Conict of interest: None declared.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijnurstu.2015.10.018.
References

10. Conclusions
The ndings of this review suggest that irrespective of
primary role, practice setting, or nationality, most nurses
are not ready for EBP. Although nurses are familiar with the
concept of EBP, have positive attitudes toward EBP, and
believe in the value of EBP in improving care quality and
patient outcomes, nurses perceive their own EBP knowledge and skills to be insufcient for employing EBP, i.e., for
using best available evidence as the basis for clinical
decision-making in daily practice. The ndings also
indicate that irrespective of nationality, large proportions
of nurses do not use research or integrate best evidence
into their daily practice. As nurses are the largest group of
healthcare professionals working in healthcare organizations globally, it is likely that the anticipated outcome of
EBP to provide best possible care at the lowest possible
cost in an environment of limited resources (Closs and
Cheater, 1999) is seldom realized in nursing care. This is
likely to have serious implications on the quality of care,
patient outcomes, and patient safety at healthcare organizations worldwide.
Given the IOMs (2011) goal that by 2020, 90% of all
clinical decisions should be evidence-based, there is an
urgent need for healthcare leaders to collaborate in
designing and implementing effective strategies that
promote the integration of best evidence into daily care
delivery of the nursing workforce. In particular, all
efforts should be focused on systematically using
strategies that have been shown effective in rigorous
studies, to translate best evidence into practice-friendly
forms that nurses actually can use in daily care delivery,
i.e., forms that are relevant in the local context and
readily usable in clinical practice, such as evidencebased CPGs and care bundles. Lastly, the selected
strategies need to include using effective interventions
to strengthen nurses readiness for EBP, in order to
progress from opinion-based toward evidence-based
practice in patient care.

Adams, S., Barron, S., 2009. Use of evidence-based practice in school

nursing: Prevalence, associated variables and perceived needs.
Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 6 (1), 1626.
Adib-Hajbaghery, M., 2009. Evidence-based practice: Iranian nurses
perceptions. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 6 (2), 93101.
Alanen, S., Kaila, M., Valimaki, M., 2009. Attitudes toward guidelines in
Finnish primary care nursing: a questionnaire survey. Worldviews
Evid.-Based Nurs. 6 (4), 29236.
Beke-Harrigan, H., Hess, R., Weinland, J.A., 2008. A survey of Registered
Nurses readiness for evidence-based practice: a multidisciplinary
project. J. Hosp. Librariansh. 8 (4), 440448.
Bennett, S., Tooth, L., McKenna, K., Rodger, S., Strong, J., Ziviani, J., Gibson,
L., 2003. Perceptions of evidence-based practice: a survey of Australian occupational therapists. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 50, 1322.
Bonner, A., Sando, J., 2007. Examining the knowledge, attitude, and use of
research by nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 16, 334343.
Bostrom, A.-M., Ehrenberg, A., Gustavsson, J.P., Wallin, L., 2009. Registered
Nurses application of evidence-based practice: a national survey. J.
Eval. Clin. Pract. 15, 11591163.
Breimaier, H.E., Halfens, R.J.G., Lohrmann, C., 2011. Nurses wishes,
knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers on implementing research ndings into practice among graduate nurses in Austria. J. Clin.
Nurs. 20, 17441756.
Brown, C.E., Wickline, M.A., Ecoff, L., Glaser, D., 2008. Nursing practice, knowledge, attitudes and perceived barriers to evidencebased practice at an academic medical center. J. Adv. Nurs. 65 (2),
371381.
Cadmus, E., Van Wynen, E.A., Chamberlain, B., Steingall, P., Kilgallen,
M.E., Holly, C., Gallagher-Ford, L., 2008. Nurses skill level
and access to evidence-based practice. J. Nurs. Adm. 38 (11),
494503.
Closs, S.J., Cheater, F.M., 1999. Evidence for nursing practice: a clarication of the issues. J. Adv. Nurs. 30 (1), 1017.
Dalheim, A., Harthug, S., Nilsen, R.M., Nortvedt, M.W., 2012. Factors
inuencing the development of evidence-based practice among
nurses: a self-report survey. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12 (367) .
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-6963/12/367.
DiCenso, A., Cullum, N., Ciliska, D., 1998. Implementing evidence-based
nursing: some misconceptions. Evid. Based Nurs. 1, 3840.
Egerod, I., Hansen, G.M., 2005. Evidence-based practice among Danish
cardiac nurses: a national survey. J. Adv. Nurs. 51 (5), 465473.
Eizenberg, M., 2011. Implementation of evidence-based nursing practice:
Nurses personal and professional factors? J. Adv. Nurs. 67 (1), 3342.
Estabrooks, C., 1999. Will Evidence-Based Nursing Practice Make Practice
Perfect? Can. J. Nurs. Res. 30 (1), 1536.
Filippini, A., Sessa, A., Giuseppe, G.D., Angelillo, I.F., 2011. Evidence-based
practice among nurses in Italy. Eval. Health Prof. 34, 371382.
Fink, R., Thompson, C., Bonnes, D., 2005. Overcoming barriers and promoting the use of research in practice. J. Nurs. Adm. 35 (3), 121129.
Florin, J., Ehrenberg, A., Wallin, L., Gustavsson, P., 2012. Educational
support for research utilization and capability beliefs regarding

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

12

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx

evidence-based practice skills: a national survey of senior nursing

students. J. Adv. Nurs. 68, 888897.
Gerrish, K., Guillaume, L., Kirshbaum, M., McDonnell, A., Tod, A., Nolan, M.,
2011. Factors inuencing the contribution of Advanced Practice
Nurses to promoting evidence-based practice among frontline
nurses: ndings from a cross-sectional study. J. Adv. Nurs. 67 (5),
10791090.
Gerrish, K., Ashworth, P., Lacey, A., Bailey, J., 2008. Developing evidencebased practice: experiences of senior and junior clinical nurses. J. Adv.
Nurs. 62 (1), 6273.
Gifford, W., Davies, B., Edwards, N., Grifn, P., Lybanon, V., 2007.
Managerial leadership for nurses use of research evidence: an
integrative review of the literature. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs.
4 (3), 126145.
Gonzales-Torrente, S., Pericas-Beltran, J., Bennasar-Veny, M., AdroverBarcelo, R., Morales-Asencio, J., De Pedro-Gomez, J., 2012. Perception
of evidence-based practice and the professional environment of
Primary Health Care nurses in the Spanish context: a cross-sectional
study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 12, 227.
Grol, R., Grimshaw, J., 2003. From best evidence to best practice: effective
implementation of change in patients care. Lancet 362, 12251230.
Hallberg, I.R., 2006. Challenges for future nursing research: providing
evidence for health-care practice. Guest editorial. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 43
(8), 923927.
Hauck, S., Winsett, R., Kuric, J., 2012. Leadership facilitation strategies to
establish evidence-based practice in an acute care hospital. J. Adv.
Nurs. 69 (3), 664674.
Harrison, M.B., Graham, I.D., 2012. Roadmap for a participatory research-practice partnership to implement evidence. Worldviews
Evid.-Based Nurs. 210220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.
2012.00256.x.
Hart, P., Eaton, L.A., Buckner, M., Morrow, B.N., Barrett, D.T., Fraser,
D.D., Hooks, D., Sharrer, R.L., 2008. Effectiveness of a computerbased educational program on nurses knowledge, attitude,
and skill level related to EBP. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 5
(2), 7584.
Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2011. The Future of Nursing: Leading Change,
Advancing Health [prepared by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Committee Initiative on the Future of Nursing]. National Academies
Press, Washington DC.
Joanna Briggs Institute, 2007. SUMARI: The Joanna Briggs Institute System
for the Unied Management, Assessment and Review of Information
(version 4.0) Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Koehn, M., Lehman, K., 2008. Nurses perceptions of evidence-based
nursing practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (2), 209215.
Leung, K., Trevena, L., Waters, D., 2014. Systematic review of instruments
for measuring nurses knowledge, skills and attitudes for evidencebased practice. J. Adv. Nurs. 70 (10), 21812195.
Levin, R., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Barnes, M., Vetter, M., 2011.
Fostering evidence-based practice to improve nurse and cost outcomes in a community health setting: A pilot test of Advancing
Research and Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration model.
Nurs. Adm. Q. 35 (1), 2133.
Majid, S., Foo, S., Luyt, B., Zhang, X., Theng, Y.-L., Chang, Y.-K., Mokhtar, I.A.,
2011. Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making:
nurses perceptions, knowledge and barriers. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 99
(3), 229236.
Matthew-Maich, N., Ploeg, J., Dobbins, M., Jack, S., 2013. Supporting the
uptake of nursing guidelines: what you really need to know to move
nursing guidelines into practice. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 10,
104115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00259.x.
McGinty, J., Anderson, G., 2008. Predictors of physician compliance with
American Heart Association guidelines for acute myocardial infarction. Crit. Care Nurs. Q. 31 (2), 161172.
Meline, T., Paradiso, T., 2003. Evidence-based practice in schools: evaluating research and reducing barriers. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 3,
273283.
Melnyk, B.M., 2007. The evidence-based practice mentor: a promising
strategy for implementing and sustaining EBP in healthcare systems.
Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 4 (3), 123125.
Melnyk, B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., Kaplan, L., 2012. The
state of evidence-based practice among U.S. nurses. J. Nurs. Adm. 42
(9), 410417.
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.), 2011. Evidence-Based Practice
in Nursing and Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. 2nd edn. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Feinstein, N., Li, H., Small, L., Wilcox, L.,
Kraus, R., 2004. Nurses perceived knowledge, beliefs, skills, and needs
regarding EBP: Implications for accelerating the paradigm shift.
Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 1 (3), 185193.

Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Giggleman, M., Cruz, R., 2010. Correlates among cognitive beliefs, EBP implementation, organizational
culture, cohesion and job satisfaction in evidence-based practice
mentors from a community hospital system. Nurs. Outlook 58,
301308.
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Feinstein, N.F., Sadler, L.S., GreenHernandez, C., 2008. Nurse practitioner educators perceived knowledge, beliefs, and teaching strategies regarding evidence-based practice: implications for accelerating the integration of evidence-based
practice into graduate programs. J. Prof. Nurs. 24 (1), 713.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group, 2009.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6 (6), e1000097, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
Mollon, D., Fields, W., Gallo, A.-M., Wagener, R., Soucy, J., Gustafson, B.,
Kim, S.C., 2012. Staff practice, attitudes and knowledge/skills regarding evidence-based practice before and after an educational intervention. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 43, 411419.
Munten, G., Van den Bogaard, J., Cox, K., Garretsen, H., Bongers, I., 2010.
Implementation of evidence-based practice using action research: a
review. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 7 (3), 135157.
Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., 2004. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, 7th
edn. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
Pravikoff, D., Tanner, A., Pierce, S., 2005. Readiness of U.S. nurses for
evidence-based practice. Am. J. Nurs. 105 (9), 4051.
Rolfe, G., Segrott, J., Jordan, S., 2008. Tensions and contradictions in
nurses perspectives of evidence-based practice. J. Nurs. Manag. 16,
440451.
Ross, J., 2010. Information literacy for evidence-based practice in perianesthesia nurses: Readiness for evidence-based practice. J. Perianesth. Nurs. 25 (2), 6470.
Sandstrom, B., Borglin, G., Nilsson, R., Willman, A., 2011. Promoting the
implementation of evidence-based practice: a literature review focusing on the role of nursing leadership. Worldviews Evid.-Based
Nurs. 4, 212223.
Saunders, H., 2015. Translating knowledge into best practice care bundles: a pragmatic strategy for EBP implementation via moving postprocedural pain management nursing guidelines into clinical
practice. J. Clin. Nurs. 24 (1314), 20352051.
Shaneyfelt, T., Baum, K.D., Bell, D., Feldstein, D., Houston, T.K., Kaatz, S.,
Whelan, C., Green, M., 2006. Instruments for evaluating education in
evidence-based practice: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 296
(9), 11161127.
Sherriff, K., Wallis, M., Chaboyer, W., 2007. Nurses attitudes to and
perceptions of knowledge and skills regarding evidence-based practice. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 13, 363369.
Stevens, K.R., Puga, F., Low, V., 2012. The ACE-ERI: an instrument to
measure EBP readiness in student and clinical populations. Retrieved
from
http://www.acestar.uthscsa.edu/su12/documents/ace/
8%20The%20ACE-ERI%20%20Instrument%20to%20Benchmark.pdf
(accessed 05.06.15).
Straus, S.E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W.S., Haynes, R.B., 2011. EvidenceBased Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It. Church Livingstone
Elsevier, Edinburgh, UK.
Taylor, M.C., 2007. Evidence-Based Practice for the Occupational Therapist. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Thiel, L., Ghosh, Y., 2008. Determining Registered Nurses readiness
for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 5 (4),
182192.
Thomas, J., Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of
qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.
8, 45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Thorsteinsson, H.S., 2012. Icelandic nurses beliefs, skills, and resources
associated with evidence-based practice and related factors: a national survey. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 10 (2), 116126.
Thorsteinsson, H.S., Sveinsdottir, H., 2014. Readiness for and predictors of
evidence-based practice of acute care nurses: a cross-sectional postal
survey. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 28, 572581.
Torraco, J., 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and
examples. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 4, 356367.
Upton, D., Upton, P., 2005. Nurses attitudes to evidence-based practice:
impact of a national policy. Br. J. Nurs. 14 (5), 284288.
Varnell, G., Haas, B., Duke, G., Hudson, K., 2008. Effect of an educational intervention on attitudes toward and implementation of
evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 5 (4),
172181.
Veeramah, V., 2004. Utilization of research ndings by graduate nurses
and midwives. J. Adv. Nurs. 47 (2), 183191.
Wallen, G., Mitchell, S., Melnyk, B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Miller-Davis, C.,
Yates, J., Hastings, C., 2010. Implementing evidence-based practice:

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018

G Model

NS-2659; No. of Pages 13

H. Saunders, K. Vehvilainen-Julkunen / International Journal of Nursing Studies xxx (2015) xxxxxx
effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme. J.
Adv. Nurs. 66 (12), 27612771.
Wallin, L., Bostrom, A.M., Gustavsson, J.P., 2012. Capability beliefs regarding evidence-based practice are associated with application of EBP
and research use: validation of a new measure. Worldviews Evid.Based Nurs. 9, 139148.

13

Waters, D., Crisp, J., Rychetnik, L., Barratt, A., 2009. The Australian experience of nurses preparedness for evidence-based practice. J. Nurs.
Manag. 17, 510518.
Wilkinson, J., Nutley, S., Davies, H., 2011. An exploration of the roles of
nurse managers in evidence-based practice implementation. Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs. 8 (4), 236246.

Please cite this article in press as: Saunders, H., Vehvilainen-Julkunen, K., The state of readiness for evidence-based
practice among nurses: An integrative review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.018