RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To establish the construct validity of the Spanish version of the BARRIERS scale. METHOD: Methodological study of validation of a measurement instrument based on data from previously published studies. The study population consisted of nurses from the Basque Health Service and the Canary Health Service. The following variables were extracted and unified: Years of professional experience, possession of a specialist nursing degree, possession of a doctorate, type of activity performed by the professional and field of work. For construct validation, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed based on the initial model proposed for the scale and RASCH analysis. A polychoric correlation matrix, factor extraction by unweighted least squares and PROMIN oblique rotation were used. For the RASCH analysis, the Joint Maximun Likelihood estimation (JMLE) method was used; the fit of the items and persons were estimated by means of outfit - Unweighted Mean Square fit statistic (UMS) and infit -Weighted Mean Square Fit Statistic (WMS), as well as the reliability and separation of items and persons. RESULTS: A total of 1200 nurses and midwives made up the final validation sample (n = 1200), with a mean professional experience of 21.22 ± 9.26 years. The CFA presented a good fit to the data (KMO = 0.935 [95% CI: 0.921-0.945]), changing the factorial assignment in 6 items, while 5 items received factorial scores in more than one factor. The fit values for the 4-factor solution were RMSEA = 0.026 [95% CI: 0.026-0.027] and GFI = 0.991 [95% CI: 0.986-0.991]. In the RASCH analysis most items presented infit-WMS and outfit-UMS values with a good fit. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish version of the BARRIERS scale has adequate construct validity although there are changes in the assignment of items to the dimensions compared to the original model. The RASCH analysis indicates adequate fit for both persons and items.
Asunto(s)
Autoinforme , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , España , Adulto , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the attitudes, capacities and perceived barriers associated with research among nurses and midwives of the Canary Health Service (SCS). METHODS: Descriptive observational cross-sectional study with an analytical component carried out in the different SCS departments by means of an online survey in which sociodemographic and specific variables, the Spanish version of the Attitudes towards Research and Development within Nursing Questionnaire (ATRDNQ-e) instrument and the BARRIERS scale were collected. Authorisation was obtained from the two provincial ethics committees. A descriptive and inferential analysis (Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test, post hoc contrast by Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligne test) was performed with JAMOVI® v.2.3.24 software. RESULTS: A total of 512 nurses and midwives with a mean age of 41.82 years participated in the study. Regarding the scores with the ATRDNQ-e instrument, the dimension with the lowest score was «Language of research¼ (mean = 3.55/SD = 0.84) and the highest «Assessment of nursing research and development of the nursing discipline¼ (mean = 4.54/SD = 0.52). The total mean score with the BARRIERS scale was 54.33 (SD = 16.52), with «Organizational characteristics¼ being the highest scoring subscale (mean = 17.25/SD = 5.90). The two highest perceived barriers were «Not enough time at work to implement new ideas¼ (mean = 2.55/SD = 1.11) and «Nursing does not have time to read research¼ (mean = 2.46/ SD = 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: SCS nurses have a positive attitude towards research, although there are some barriers where improvement actions for nursing research should be implemented.
Asunto(s)
Canarios , Investigación en Enfermería , Adulto , Animales , Humanos , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Estudios Transversales , Servicios de SaludRESUMEN
Investigating involves not only knowing the research methods and designs; it involves knowing the strategies for disseminating and publishing the results in scientific journals. An investigation is considered complete when it is published and is disclosed to the scientific community. The publication of a manuscript is not simple, since it involves examination by a rigorous editorial process evaluator to ensure the scientific quality of the proposal. The objective of this article is to communicate to potential authors the main errors or deficiencies that typically and routinely explain the decision by the referees of scientific journals not to accept a scientific article. Based on the experience of the authors as referees of national and international journals in the field of nursing and health sciences, we have identified a total of 10 types or groups, which cover formulation errors, inconsistencies between different parts of the text, lack of structuring, imprecise language, information gaps, and the detection of relevant inaccuracies. The identification and analysis of these issues enables their prevention, and is of great use to future researchers in the dissemination of the results of their work to the scientific community. In short, the best publishing strategy is one that ensures the scientific quality of the work and spares no effort in avoiding the errors or deficiencies that referees routinely detect in the articles they evaluate.
Asunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Edición/normas , Guías como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence based practice is essential in clinical practice. However, it is still a challenge in critical care patients. AIM: To identify the barriers for conducting research that nursing professionals perceive in intensive care and medical emergency departments, as well as to investigate the areas of interest and motivations to carry out research projects. METHOD: Cross-sectional and multicentre study carried out in 4 intensive care units and in one Medical Emergency Department emergency pre-hospital carein Catalonia on 2014. The instrument used was The Barriers to Research Utilization Scale which had been previously validated into Spanish. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was performed. A statistical significance of P<.05 was assumed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two questionnaires were obtained (69.9% response). Of the total, 135 were from critical care, 27 to pre-hospital care, and 10 from both. Just over half (57.3%) had research experience, although 44.4% had related training. The questionnaire dimension considered most relevant was organisational characteristics. The most important barriers were: there is not enough time at work [3.11 (SD 1.21)], physicians do not collaborate in its implementation [2.99 (SD 1.22)], and nurses are isolated with respect to other professionals [2.86 (SD 1.32)]. Significant differences were observed in the barriers according to research experience and work place. The main motivation was to be updated in critical patient care. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers perceived are related to the organisation. There are differences in the barriers according to research experience and work place.