Skip to main content

Table 1 Description of dependent and independent variables tested, response alternatives and their categorization

From: Factors associated with evidence-based practice among registered nurses in Sweden: a national cross-sectional study

1. Dependent variables

Categorization of response alternative

Formulate questions to search for research-based knowledge a:

high extent vs. low extent

Seek out relevant knowledge using databases b:

high extent vs. low extent

Seek out relevant knowledge using other information sources c:

high extent vs. low extent

Critically appraise and compile best knowledged:

high extent vs. low extent

Participate in implementing research-based knowledge in practice e:

high extent vs. low extent

Participate in evaluating whether practice reflects current research-based knowledge f:

high extent vs. low extent

The response format for the above six items ranged from 1 “To a very low extent” to 4 “To a very high extent”. High extent consists of 3 and 4 and low extent of 1 and 2.

 

2. Independent variables categorized by individual and organizational factors

 

Individual factors

 

Sex:

female (reference) vs. male

Age:

30 years and older (reference) vs. younger than 30 years

Previous training as a nurse aide (before studies):

no (reference) vs. yes

Further study after nursing degree: have studied and study now:

no (reference) vs. yes

Evidence-based practice capability beliefs: Evidence-based capability was measured by six items a-f following the EBP process (Cronbach’s α = 0.90). The response format ranged from 0 “No, I can’t do that” to 10 “Yes, I can do that”. High capability was characterized by a mean value >7.

low capability (reference) vs. high capability

Organizational factors

 

Present form of employment:

temporary (reference) vs. permanent

Clinical setting:

Hospital (reference) vs. primary care or older people care or psychiatric care

Full or part time:

part time (reference) vs. full time

Work shifts:

three shifts (day, evening and night) (reference) vs. office hours (Monday – Friday) or two shifts (day and evening)

Work overtime:

once per week or less often (reference) vs. several times per week

Enough staff compared to patients’ needs:

no (reference) vs. yes

Collective efficacyg: Collective efficacy was measured by 3 items (Cronbach’s α = 0.71). The response format ranged from 1 “Yes, I am sure we manage that” to 11 “No, we do not manage that”. High collective efficacy was characterized by a mean value ≤2.49.

low (reference) vs. high

Role clarityh: Role clarity was measured using three items (Cronbach’s α = 0.74). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High role clarity was characterized by a mean value ≤2.

low (reference) vs. high

Leadershipi: Leadership was measured by six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.90). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High-quality leadership was characterized by a mean value ≤2.

low (reference) vs. high

Job demandsj: Job demands were measured using four items (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High job demands were characterized by a mean value ≤2.

low (reference) vs. high

Controlk: Control was measured using four items (Cronbach’s α = 0.66). The response format ranged from 1 “very often or always” to 5 “seldom or never”. High control was characterized by a mean value ≤2.

low (reference) vs. high

Job burnout l

 

Disengagement: The disengagement scale consisted of six items (Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The response format ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 4 “totally agree”. High disengagement was characterized by a mean value >3.

low (reference) vs. high

Exhaustion: The exhaustion scale consisted of five items (Cronbach’s α = 0.74). The response format ranged from 1 “totally disagree” to 4 “totally agree”. High exhaustion was characterized by a mean value >2.5.

low (reference) vs. high

  1. Legends:
  2. a-f Six items measuring the process of evidence-based practice [18].
  3. g The measure of Collective Professional Efficacy in the LANE survey was constructed by the research group with inspiration from Bandura’s guide for constructing self-efficacy scales [22]. The collective efficacy aims to measure the individual members’ appraisals of the capability of their group operating as a whole [23].
  4. h Role clarity, or role ambiguity, refers to a situation where role expectations are unknown or unclear [24] and originates from the QPSNordic scale that was designed as an instrument for assessing psychological, social and organizational work conditions [25].
  5. i Leadership, the leadership measure in the LANE study, consist of items from the QPSNordic scales, i.e. three dimensions “social support from superiors”, “empowering leadership”, and “fair leadership” are used together, building a scale of leadership and support from superiors [25].
  6. j The job demands items in the QPSNordic measure the individuals’ perceptions and subjective evaluations of work demands, i.e. quantitative demands and decisional demands [24].
  7. k Control at work: the control dimension in the questionnaire refers to objective aspects or perceptions of the situation at work, e.g. the presence of freedom of choice between alternatives [25].
  8. l Symptoms of burnout were measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [26] including the two dimensions exhaustion and disengagement from work. Exhaustion concerns feeling drained of energy and disengagement involves distancing oneself from one’s work, and experiencing negative attitudes towards the work in general.
  9. Reference =1. Number of categories indicated when >2.
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us