Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 90-102 Available Online at http://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/medianers
DOI: 10.14710/nmjn.v9i1.20827
Revisiting the Barriers to and Facilitators of Research
Utilization in Nursing: A Systematic Review
Cyruz P. Tuppal1, Paolo D. Vega2, Marina Magnolia G. Ninobla3, Mark Donald
Reñosa4, Abdullah Al-Battashi5, Glenda Arquiza6, Elizabeth P. Baua1
1St. Paul University Philippines System, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan Valley
2Mount Sinai St. Luke’s Hospital, New York, United States of America 3College of Nursing, Muscat Branch, Sultanate of Oman
4Research Institute for Tropical Medicine – Department of Health, Philippines 5Oman Specialty Medical Board, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman
6Philippine Regulation Commission, Manila, Philippines
Corresponding Author: Cyruz P. Tuppal (drcyruztuppal@gmail.com)
Received: 29 October 2019 Revised: 19 May 2019 Accepted: 12 June 2019
 
ABSTRACT
 
Background: Nursing profession continues to evolve, expand, and link its practice that
requires evidence to strengthen its body of knowledge, and research utilization (RU) is
pivotal towards this realization.
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to critically identify, select, appraise, and
synthesize research evidence about the barriers to and facilitators of research utilization.
Methods: There were 17,961 papers during the initial database search and 85 papers
from other sources from the electronic databases including Web of Science, CINAHL,
Complete, Scopus, OVID, Medline, PsychInfo, SocIndex, Internurse, British Nursing
Index, ERIC, and PubMed. After further analysis, thirty-six articles were included in the
analysis that explicitly identified and described the barriers to and facilitators of
research utilization in nursing.
Results: Based on the findings, the lack of awareness about research, lack of authority
to change their practice, overwhelming publications, and lack of compiled literature
were the topmost identified barriers to research utilization. On the other hand,
organizational and colleague support, and continuing education as both personal and
professional commitment can further facilitate research utilization.
Conclusion: Despite extensive studies conducted addressing the barriers to research
utilization, the findings suggest a consistent reproach on the capability of nurses to
maximize and utilize research. The same elements that may serve as barriers can
likewise become the impetus in gaining sufficient research utilization among nurses.
 
Keywords: Barriers; facilitators; nursing; research utilization; systematic review
 
 
BACKGROUND
The nursing profession continues to evolve, expand, and link its practice on the
evidence as the groundwork to strengthen its body of knowledge through research.
From the time the National Center for Nursing Research (NCNR) was created, research
has become “a sign of the profession’s status, power, and acknowledged the contribution
to the health of the American public” (D’Antonio, 1997, p. 105). “The NCNR is a
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 91
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
turning point in the history of nursing research that further broadens the opportunities of
various scientific investigations. During the infancy stage of nursing research, the focus
was nursing concepts, roles, and professional programs” (p. 204). The graduate
programs focused on nursing procedures, war-related and military services, workforce
distribution, costs of services, and nursing education. There was also an apparent
demand during the post-World War II for the standardization of practice, qualification
of nurses, inclusion of mental health services, student, and professional attributes along
with the process of socialization grounded in social sciences.
 
Gortner (1980) also emphasized the emerging focus on career mobility to advance
practice, opportunities for education, and training for the nurse scientists. Added to this
landmark was the growth of practice-related research during the 1970s, including
disease-specific therapeutic modalities, either actual or potential health needs of the
diverse patient population and nurse-patient relationships. Throughout the 1980s, theory
development was highlighted for nurse scientists “to think, to examine, to analyze, and
to synthesize” elements for the advancement of nursing as a discipline interwoven in
education, research and practice (Harriet, 1980). From then and way forward, the focus
of nursing research becomes multifaceted to address the patient demands, the ever-
changing status of healthcare, demographic shift, radical reforms, and globalization.
Gortner (1980) from his seminal work, noted that nursing would continue to search for
knowledge on health promotion, illness prevention, curative, rehabilitation, and
restoration. The union of nursing and technology serves as an impetus addressing the
biomedical, behavioral, and clinical sciences to advance practice along with the research
utilization (Bostrom & Suter, 1993; Estabrooks, Winther, & Derksen, 2004).
 
In the recent development, the practice of nursing has presented scientific and
authoritative credence as a discipline. However, as the new millennium unfolds, it also
poses immeasurable threats and research has been considered to be a pivotal instrument
to strengthen the profession’s resilience and adaptability. Nurses need to use research
findings, and through research utilization, the best practices and substantial evidence
will lead to better practice, improve patient outcomes, and inform policymaking bodies.
Moving to a more important realization, nurses should better start addressing those
barriers to and facilitators of research utilization.
 
PURPOSE
This study employed a systematic review of the literature to identify, select, appraise,
and synthesize research evidence on barriers to and facilitators of research utilization in
nursing.
 
METHODS
A systematic review was used in this study. Both quantitative and qualitative studies
were aggregated to develop a deeper understanding of barriers to and facilitators of RU.
The authors performed computerized searches from the Web of Science, CINAHL
Complete, Scopus, ERIC, OVID, Medline, PsychInfo, SocIndex, Internurse, British
Nursing Index, and PubMed using the keywords ‘barriers,’ ‘facilitators,’ ‘research
utilization,’ or ‘research utilisation,’ ‘nurse,’ and ‘nursing.’ A supplemental hand
searching that involved a manual page-by-page examination of the entire content of a
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 92
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
journal issue to avoid bias in a keyword search was also conducted. The retrieved
articles were imported by using a reference manager and were screened based on the
prespecified selection criteria.
 
Final criteria for single publication were studies with an explicit focus on barriers to and
facilitators of research utilization, reports of empirical data (qualitative and
quantitative); and articles in English published in January 2007 through October 2017.
Newspapers, magazines, images, conference summaries, dissertation, and poetry were
excluded. There were 17,961 papers during the initial database search and 85 papers
from other sources. When limits were applied, there were 3,369 articles, of which
14,182 were removed as duplicates. Three hundred fifty-five (355) were included for
full-text review, 36 articles for final screening, and 36 for final inclusion. Figure 1
shows the PRISMA Flow Chart detailing the results of the search summary.
 
 
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow chart detailing of studies through the review
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 93
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
The authors reviewed the articles in three phases. In Phase 1, all included articles
underwent a double-blind review of whether to reject or accept the articles
(CT/PV/MDR). In Phase 2, all records were reviewed for the full details
(CT/PV/MN/MDR/AA). Many articles contained incomplete information, including the
abstract and title, introduction and aims, data analysis, ethics and bias, findings or
results, transferability/generalizability, and implications and usefulness. In Phase 3, the
scoring for methodological rigor involved the assessment of the articles based on
abstract & title, introduction, and aims, method and data, sampling, data analysis, ethics
and bias, findings/results, transferability/generalizability, implications and usefulness
using a four-point Likert scale (4=good, 3=fair, 2=poor, and 1=very poor) by five
authors independently. Reviewers reached consensus during a disagreement about the
retrieved articles (CT/PV/MN/MDR/AA). The country of origin, study design, sample,
setting, barriers, and facilitators were systematically coded.
 
RESULTS
Characteristics of studies
Thirty-six studies in this review include seven (7) from the United States of America,
five (5) from Turkey, three (3) from China, two each (2) from the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, South Korea, and Iran. Other articles were from Sweden, Hongkong Taiwan,
Bahrain, Austria, Spain, Greece, Jordan, Nepal, Norway, Australia, and Kenya. Thirty
(30) quantitative studies were identified using descriptive, cross-sectional, and
correlational or a combined approach. One (1) quasi-experimental pre-posttest design
was noted. Five (5) qualitative studies, among them three (3) literature reviews, one (1)
systematic review, and one (1) grounded theory approach.
 
Funk, Champagne, Wiese, and Tornquist (1991) initially developed the 28-item Barriers
to Research Utilization Scale (BRUS), the Conduct and Utilization of Research in
Nursing (CURN) Project Research Utilization Questionnaire. Two studies used this
original version, and others had the modified 29-item with four factors (adopter/nurse,
organization/setting, innovation/research, and communication/presentation). Overall,
BRUS had high reliability, and content validity from various studies across countries
and population from the 1990s to 2000s translated to different languages like Spanish,
Chinese, Korean, Persian, and Turkish.
 
The sample nurses surveyed from different settings were from tertiary public hospitals,
gerontological nursing homes, university teaching hospital, specialty pediatric hospital,
primary care centers, and traditional Chinese medicine tertiary-level hospital. The
sample size among nurses ranged from 63 to 1,487 while focus group among public
health nurses had sixteen.
 
Quality scores of articles included
Table 1 shows the results of quality appraisal scores. The included studies were
reviewed and graded based on the abstract & title, introduction and aims, method and
data, sampling, data analysis, ethics and bias, findings/results, transferability/
generalizability, implications, and usefulness. The independent review and appraisal
scores ranged from 92% – 97% (Hawker, Payne, Kerr, Hardey, & Powell, 2002). A
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 94
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the variation of the type of outcome measures.
Hence, content analysis was undertaken.
 
Barriers to facilitators of research utilization
Table 2 shows the topmost barriers to RU based on the following domains: adopter/
nurse, organization/setting, innovation/research, and presentation communication.
Seven articles found nurses to have a lack of awareness about research (adopter/nurse).
Twenty-one (21) articles indicate a lack of authority to change practice (organization/
setting). Three (3) articles reported overwhelming publications (innovation/research)
and four (4) articles indicated a lack of available relevant literature compilation
(communication/presentation). The topmost facilitators of research utilization
highlighted in this review: organizational support; colleague support and continuing
education as personal and professional commitment.
 
DISCUSSION
RU has gained much recognition in the past recent years and continued to attract
attention (Estabrooks et al., 2004). From an early commentary, Gift (1994) mentioned
that RU is “the use of research findings as a basis for practice” (p. 306). Estabrooks et
al. (2004) mentioned that as early as the 1970s, research-based projects proliferated due
to the demands of the advancements in nursing practice in the United States, Canada,
and the United Kingdom. Using a bibliometric analysis, Estabrooks et al. (2004) found
RU as a topic existed in 630 articles between 1981 to 2001 in 194 journals. Among
them, there were 350 opinion articles, 65 conceptual articles, 112 clinical research
utilization studies, and 103 research articles. Estabrooks et al. (2004) highlighted three
significant reasons why RU has not been fully implemented including interdisciplinary
collaboration has not yet occurred, less evidence of active programmatic research and
research utilization as a scholarship is more renounced among the developed countries.
 
The findings in this review revealed that despite the knowledge diffusion and
advancement in technology, and advocacy on research capacity-building in many
organizations, nurses are still caught unaware of the research. Nurses had low direct
participation and involvement in research and did not attend any postgraduate courses
that could reduce barriers. The lack of awareness about research could also be related to
the nurses’ daily work that demands much of their time, and nurses’ attributes for being
task-oriented and role-focused in direct patient care. Moreover, nurses tend to focus on
the role at hand and engage heavily in regular unit roles and responsibilities. In addition
to this focus, specialized nurses are heavily engaging themselves in the technical and
advanced skills performed in specialized units. Other reason could be the nurses’ feeling
of isolation from knowledgeable colleagues (Kocaman et al., 2010). Nurses who feel
that they have been away from studying for a more extended period and are discouraged
perceive that they do not have any research involvement. The so-called theory-practice
gap may have also contributed to the feeling of isolation.
 
It should be noted that lack of facilities highlighted in some other studies also yields a
lack of awareness among nurses including adequate resources, education and training,
and policies where support from the organization should be prioritized. The lack of
authority to change practice is reported in many studies. This finding echoed the studies
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 95
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
from Saudi and Bahrain where Omer (2012) surmised, “Saudi hospitals are
administered either under the medical or operational department, a status that reduces
nursing department autonomy” (p. 71). Buhaid, Lau, and O’Connor (2014) mentioned
that empowerment is imperative for nurses despite bureaucratic demands of a
hierarchical organization exist. According to Kang (2015), the conditions of work
empowerment are significant predictors of the three barriers: adopter (nurse),
organization (setting), and communication (research). Nurses feel that they lack
authority to change a practice that is related to factors such as resistance to change,
complacency in the existing routine practices, lack of managerial support, as well as
lack of policies and regulations to support some of these changes. For example, students
are taught in their diploma, bachelors, or post-graduate studies to practice in a specific
manner as per the international standards. However, when these students or graduates
go to clinical settings, they see different practices leading to a theory-practice gap.
When such students or graduates attempt to create changes through RU, there is limited
support in the system that allows them to make the desired changes.
 
Nurses also reported an overwhelming publication requirement, and institutional
approval is not made readily available. This finding suggests that nurses who would
wish to publish their articles take some time for the review process and publication.
This is particularly evident in bureaucratic organizations where there are rules and
regulations and multiple levels of approvals for moving research work forward. High-
ranking peer-refereed journals have their window review period to ensure conformity to
their guidelines. Nurses should understand the rigorous process of review but should not
be discouraged. Nurses should always have the intrinsic motivation for research
activities and move forward with RU as an integral part of improving their practice and
providing high-quality care for their patients and their communities.
 
The lack of relevant literature compilation is another barrier. Nurses would appreciate if
there were available and more accessible resources that they could use whenever they
need even for reading or actual research conduct. For instance, the library journal
subscriptions that should be in place and the availability of such resources would
encourage nurses and be an excellent motivator for them in initiating and moving their
research work forward. Schoonover (2009) contends that this barrier is perhaps due to a
lack of knowledge and skills to access and search electronic databases.
 
Also, the results indicate that organizational support is an essential driver of RU and
consistently mentioned in international literature. Organizational support is critical in
RU, specifically in bureaucratic organizations where approvals and funding are a
lengthy process. The organization can provide funding, infrastructures, and facilities for
research. However, developing countries need to strive in building hybrid facilities for
research. The government-owned universities and healthcare organizations have a
limited budget to make RU as feasible and implementable as possible.
 
Colleague support is also another driver of RU. Those who have experience can assist
nurses in developing their research skills in various phases (e.g., conceptualization,
empirical, analytical, dissemination, and utilization). Colleague support is an asset to
organizations and an essential method for nurses to commence and initiate the process
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 96
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
of research. On the one hand, the multidisciplinary collaboration between academic and
service partnerships are in existence to date. The collegial partnerships would yield
mentored participation to motivate nurses, enhance their involvement, and heighten
their commitment.
 
Moreover, nurses would have inner motivation to conduct research, pursue postgraduate
courses, and eventually utilize their findings to inform practice, and build authority. It is
worth noting that the so-called ‘theory-practice’ is an essential challenge to the initiation
of research and RU. The concept of research is made complicated and confusing by
academics and educators, while educators and academics do not understand the practice
setting. Clinicians perhaps do not understand all aspects of research. Hence, the gap
becomes more prominent.
 
Another aspect that is important in this context is that research is the least emphasized
aspect of educational preparation due to curriculum constraints, as well as the focus of
the curriculum, is more on the acquisition of knowledge and skills aspects such as
critical thinking, patient history and assessment, and on other management patient
aspects, but not on research. One crucial issue that should be considered within the area
of RU is the role of the nurse that poses a challenge, particularly the specialized nurse or
midwife. The role of the specialized nurse and midwife poses a constraint to their desire
and ability to participate in research activities because of the increased workloads, time
constraints, as well as staff shortages.
 
Results indicate that there need to be concerted efforts for healthcare professionals,
specifically nurses, to enhance RU in all aspects of their practice and professional
careers. Efforts should be geared for nurses to promote research-based activities. These
include but not limited to critical decision making “clinical challenging,” critiquing and
appraising of the available evidence, capitalizing on available resources, partnerships
between academics and clinicians, collaboration with administrators, and designing
clinical studies. The results of the study deploy a possible avenue to help improve the
present and future patient outcomes. Nurse educators and clinical nurse educators must
fulfill the call to serve as role models and facilitators of evidence-based nursing through
learning activities. Likewise, as nurses are expected to be the primary caregivers be it
inside or outside the confines of the hospital, the identification of favorable and adverse
research utilization imposes a very significant impact for evidence-based nursing care. It
is seemingly apparent that there exists a gap to support the goals for a more scientific
approach to nursing practice when the barriers to research utilization are present within
clinical practice settings. These have made it difficult for nurses to fully absorb the
possible benefits of RU and incorporate these to help advance evidence-based nursing
practice.
 
CONCLUSION
This review showed that the lack of awareness about research, lack of authority to
change their practice, overwhelming publications, and lack of compiled literature are
the topmost identified barriers to RU. Meanwhile, organizational and colleague support
and continuing education as both personal and professional commitment are found to
facilitate research utilization further. Despite extensive studies conducted addressing the
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 97
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
barriers to RU, the findings suggest a consistent reproach on the capability of nurses to
maximize and utilize research. With the same elements that may serve as barriers to, can
likewise become the impetus in gaining sufficient RU among nurses. The prime movers
identified to encourage RU among nurses can be deduced in the provision of adequate
support, extending from the organizational to collegial and to personal self-motivation
pursuit to excellence, the nursing profession endures to evolve. To fully realize the
implementation of RU in nursing, the barriers, as mentioned in this review, should be
addressed primarily those that limit nurses’ scope of practice.
 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
 
REFERENCES
Aboshaiqah, A. E., Qasim, A., Al Bashaireh, A., & Patalagsa, J. G. (2014). Nurses’
perception of barriers to research utilization in a public hospital in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Medical Journal, 35(9), 1136-1139.
Al Khalaileh, M., Al Qadire, M., Musa, A., Al-Khawaldeh, O., Al Qudah, H., &
Alhabahbeh, A. (2016). Closing the gap between research evidence and clinical
practice: Jordanian nurses’ perceived barriers to research utilization. Journal of
Education and Practice, 7(8), 52-57.
Athanasakis, E. (2013). Nurses’ research behavior and barriers to research utilization
into clinical nursing practice: A closer look. International Journal of Caring
Sciences, 6(1), 16-28.
Atkinson, M., Turkel, M., & Cashy, J. (2008). Overcoming barriers to research in a
magnet community hospital. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 23(4), 362-368.
Austvoll-Dahlgren, A., & Helseth, S. (2012). Public health nurses’ barriers and
facilitators to the use of research in consultations about childhood vaccinations.
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26(2), 271-278. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6712.2011.00928.x
Boström, A.-M., Kajermo, K. N., Nordström, G., & Wallin, L. (2008). Barriers to
research utilization and research use among registered nurses working in the care
of older people: Does the barriers scale discriminate between research users and
non-research users on perceptions of barriers? Implementation Science, 3, 24-24.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-24
Bostrom, J., & Suter, N. W. (1993). Research utilization: Making the link to practice.
Journal of Nursing Staff Development, 9(1), 28-34.
Breimaier, H. E., Halfens, R. J. G., & Lohrmann, C. (2011). Nurses’ wishes,
knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers on implementing research findings
into practice among graduate nurses in Austria. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
20(11-12), 1744-1756. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03491.x
Brown, C. E., Ecoff, L., Kim, S. C., Wickline, M. A., Rose, B., Klimpel, K., & Glaser,
D. (2010). Multi-institutional study of barriers to research utilization and
evidence-based practice among hospital nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
19(13-14), 1944-1951. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03184.x
Buhaid, N., Lau, R., & O’Connor, M. (2014). A survey of nurses’ perceived barriers to
research utilization in Bahrain in comparison to other countries. Middle East
Journal of Nursing, 8(2), 3-9.
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 98
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
Chang, H. C., Russell, C., & Jones, M. K. (2010). Implementing evidence-based
practice in Taiwanese nursing homes: Attitudes and perceived barriers and
facilitators. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 36(1), 41-48.
doi:10.3928/00989134-20091204-04
Chau, J. P. C., Lopez, V., & Thompson, D. R. (2008). A survey of Hongkong nurses’
perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of research utilization. Research in
Nursing and Health, 31(6), 640-649. doi:10.1002/nur.20289
Chen, S. H., Shao, J. H., Hsiao, Y. C., & Lee, H. C. (2013). Barriers to research
utilization by registered nurses in Taiwan. Research in Nursing and Health, 36(2),
191-202. doi:10.1002/nur.21521
Chien, W. T., Bai, Q., Wong, W. K., Wang, H., & Lu, X. (2013). Nurses’ perceived
barriers to and facilitators of research utilization in mainland China: A cross-
sectional survey. Open Nursing Journal, 7(1), 96-106.
Cline, G. J., Burger, K. J., Amankwah, E. K., Goldenberg, N. A., & Ghazarian, S. R.
(2017). Promoting the utilization of science in healthcare (push) project: A
description of the perceived barriers and facilitators to research utilization among
pediatric nurses. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 33(3), 113-119.
doi:10.1097/nnd.0000000000000345
D’Antonio, P. (1997). Toward a history of research in nursing. Nursing Research,
46(2), 105-110. doi:10.1097/00006199-199703000-00008
Estabrooks, C. A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: A
bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nurs Res,
53(5), 293-303.
Funk, S. G., Champagne, M. T., Wiese, R. A., & Tornquist, E. M. (1991). Barriers: The
barriers to research utilization scale. Applied Nursing Research, 4(1), 39-45.
doi:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80052-7
Gift, G. A. (1994). Nursing research utilization. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 8(6), 306-
306. doi:10.1097/00002800-199411000-00005
Gortner, S. R. (1980). Nursing research: Out of the past and into the future. Nursing
Research, 29(4), 204-206.
Harriet, F. R. (1980). Nursing research in the 1980s: Issues and implications. Advances
in Nursing Science, 3(1), 85-92. doi:10.1097/00012272-198010000-00009
Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the
evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research,
12(9), 1284-1299. doi:10.1177/1049732302238251 Hendricks, J., & Cope, V. (2017). Research is not a ‘scary’ word: Registered nurses and the
barriers to research utilization. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, 37(1), 44-50.
Heydari, A., & Emami Zeydi, A. (2014). Barriers to and facilitators of research
utilization among Iranian nurses: A literature review. Journal of Caring Sciences,
3(4), 265-275. doi:10.5681/jcs.2014.029
Kang, H. (2015). Geriatric hospital nurses’ perceived barriers to research utilization and
empowerment. Asian Nursing Research, 9(1), 65-72.
doi:10.1016/j.anr.2014.11.005
Kocaman, G., Seren, S., Lash, A. A., Kurt, S., Bengu, N., & Yurumezoglu, H. A.
(2010). Barriers to research utilization by staff nurses in a university hospital.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(13-14), 1908-1918. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2009.03032.x
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 99
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
Mehrdad, N., Salsali, M., & Kazemnejad, A. (2008). The spectrum of barriers to and
facilitators of research utilization in Iranian nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
17(16), 2194-2202. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02040.x
Morenso-Casbas, T., Fuentelsaz-Gallego, C., de Miguel, A. G., Gonzalez-Maria, E., &
Clarke, S. P. (2011). Spanish nurses’ attitudes towards research and perceived
barriers and facilitators of research utilization: A comparative survey of nurses
with and without experience as principal investigators. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 20(13-14), 1936-1947. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03656.x
Mutisya, A., Karani, A., & Kigondu, C. (2015). Research utilization among nurses at a
teaching hospital in Kenya. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 95-104.
doi:10.15171/jcs.2015.010
O’Nan, C. L. (2011). The effect of a journal club on perceived barriers to the utilization
of nursing research in a practice setting. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development,
27(4), 160-164. doi:10.1097/NND.0b013e31822365f6
Oh, E. G. (2008). Research activities and perceptions of barriers to research utilization
among critical care nurses in Korea. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 24(5),
314-322. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2007.12.001
Omer, T. (2012). Research utilization in a multicultural nursing setting in Saudi Arabia:
Barriers and facilitators. Journal of Nursing Research, 20(1), 66-73.
doi:10.1097/JNR.0b013e31824777d8
Sanjari, M., Baradaran, H. R., Aalaa, M., & Mehrdad, N. (2015). Barriers and
facilitators of nursing research utilization in Iran: A systematic review. Iranian
Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 20(5), 529-539. doi:10.4103/1735-
9066.164501
Sari, D., Turgay, A. S., Genc, R. E., & Bozkurt, O. D. (2012). Research activities and
perceptions of barriers to research utilization among Turkish nurses. Journal of
Continuing Education in Nursing, 43(6), 251-258. doi:10.3928/00220124-
20111115-05
Schoonover, H. (2009). Barriers to research utilization among registered nurses
practicing in a community hospital. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development,
25(4), 199-212. doi:10.1097/NND.0b013e3181ae145f
Solomons, N. M., & Spross, J. A. (2011). Evidence-based practice barriers and
facilitators from a continuous quality improvement perspective: An integrative
review. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(1), 109-120. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2834.2010.01144.x
Srijana, K. C., Raj Subramaniam, P., & Paudel, S. (2016). Barriers and facilitators of
utilizing research among nurses in Nepal. Journal of Continuing Education in
Nursing, 47(4), 171-179. doi:10.3928/00220124-20160322-07
Strickland, R. J., & O’Leary-Kelley, C. (2009). Clinical nurse educators’ perceptions of
research utilization: Barriers and facilitators to change. Journal for Nurses in Staff
Development, 25(4), 164-171. doi:10.1097/NND.0b013e3181ae142b
Tan, M., Sahin, Z. A., & Ozdemir, F. K. (2012). Barriers of research utilization from the
perspective of nurses in eastern Turkey. Nursing Outlook, 60(1), 44-50.
doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2011.07.002
Uysal, A., Temel, A. B., Ardahan, M., & Ozkahraman, S. (2010). Barriers to research
utilisation among nurses in Turkey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(23-24), 3443-
3452. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03318.x
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 100
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
Wang, L.-P., Jiang, X.-L., Wang, L., Wang, G.-R., & Bai, Y.-J. (2013). Barriers to and
facilitators of research utilization: A survey of registered nurses in China. PloS
One, 8(11), e81908-e81908. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081908
Yadav, B. L., & Fealy, G. M. (2012). Irish psychiatric nurses’ self‐reported barriers, facilitators and skills for developing evidence‐based practice. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 19(2), 116-122. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2850.2011.01763.x
Yava, A., Tosun, N., Cicek, H., Yavan, T., Terakye, G., & Hatipoglu, S. (2009). Nurses’
perceptions of the barriers to and the facilitators of research utilization in Turkey.
Applied Nursing Research, 22(3), 166-175. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2007.11.003
Zhou, F., Maier, M., Hao, Y., Tang, L., Guo, H., Liu, H., & Liu, Y. (2015). Barriers to
research utilization among registered nurses in traditional Chinese medicine
hospitals: A cross-sectional survey in China. Evidence-Based Complementary And
Alternative Medicine: Ecam, 2015, 475340-475340. doi:10.1155/2015/475340
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 101
 
 
Appendixes
Table 1. Quality appraisal scores
Authors Country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Appraised
Studies
Aboshaiqah, Qasim, Al Bashaireh, and Patalagsa (2014) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 94% Al Khalaileh et al. (2016) Jordan 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 94%
Athanasakis (2013) Greece 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 94%
Atkinson, Turkel, and Cashy (2008) USA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 97% Austvoll-Dahlgren and Helseth (2012) Norway 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 94%
Boström, Kajermo, Nordström, and Wallin (2008) Sweden 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 97% Breimaier, Halfens, and Lohrmann (2011) Austria 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Brown et al. (2010) USA 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 94%
Buhaid et al. (2014) Bahrain 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97% Chang, Russell, and Jones (2010) Taiwan 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 97%
Chau, Lopez, and Thompson (2008) Hongkong 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97%
Chen, Shao, Hsiao, and Lee (2013) Taiwan 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97% Chien, Bai, Wong, Wang, and Lu (2013) China 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97%
Cline, Burger, Amankwah, Goldenberg, and Ghazarian
(2017)
USA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 97%
Hendricks and Cope (2017) Australia 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 97%
Heydari and Emami Zeydi (2014) Iran 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 94%
Kang (2015) South Korea 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 94% Kocaman et al. (2010) Turkey 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Mehrdad, Salsali, and Kazemnejad (2008) Iran 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 94%
Morenso-Casbas, Fuentelsaz-Gallego, de Miguel, Gonzalez-Maria, and Clarke (2011)
Spain 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 94%
Mutisya, Karani, and Kigondu (2015) Kenya 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 97%
O’Nan (2011) USA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 97% Oh (2008) Korea 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Omer (2012) KSA 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 92%
Sanjari, Baradaran, Aalaa, and Mehrdad (2015) Iran 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97% Sari, Turgay, Genc, and Bozkurt (2012) Turkey 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Schoonover (2009) USA 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 94%
Solomons and Spross (2011) USA 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 97% Srijana, Raj Subramaniam, and Paudel (2016) Nepal 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Strickland and O’Leary-Kelley (2009) USA 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 92%
Tan, Sahin, and Ozdemir (2012) Turkey 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 97% Uysal, Temel, Ardahan, and Ozkahraman (2010) Turkey 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 97%
Wang, Jiang, Wang, Wang, and Bai (2013) China 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 97%
Yadav and Fealy (2012) Ireland 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 92% Yava et al. (2009) Turkey 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 97%
Zhou et al. (2015) China 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 97%
Note: 1Abstract & Title, 2Introduction and aims, 3Method and data, 4Sampling, 5Data analysis, 6Ethics and bias, 7Findings/results, 8Transferability/generalizability, 9Implications, and usefulness (4=good, 3=fair, 2=poor, and 1=very poor)
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799
 
 

 
Nurse Media Journal of Nursing, 9(1), 2019, 102
 
 
Table 2. Topmost barriers to and facilitators for research utilization
Barriers to Research Utilization Facilitators of Research Utilization
Domain Authors Domain Authors
Adopter/Nurse Characteristics:
Lack of awareness about
research
Athanasakis (2013), Breimaier et al. (2011),
Kang (2015), Kocaman et al. (2010),
Morenso-Casbas et al. (2011), Sari et al.
(2012), Schoonover (2009)
Colleague Support for the
interdisciplinary team and
mentored participation
Chau et al. (2008), Cline et al. (2017), Heydari and
Emami Zeydi (2014), Mehrdad et al. (2008), Yadav
and Fealy (2012)
Continuing education as a
personal and professional
commitment
Buhaid et al. (2014), Chang et al. (2010), Chau et
al. (2008) , Cline et al. (2017), Heydari and Emami
Zeydi (2014), Mehrdad et al. (2008), Srijana et al.
(2016), Yadav and Fealy (2012)
 
Organization/Setting
Characteristics: Lack of
authority to change practice
Omer (2012), Yava et al. (2009), Schoonover
(2009), Strickland and O’Leary-Kelley (2009),
Buhaid et al. (2014), Wang et al. (2013),
Chang et al. (2010), Atkinson et al. (2008),
Chau et al. (2008), Tan et al. (2012), O’Nan
(2011), Al Khalaileh et al. (2016), Brown et
al. (2010), Cline et al. (2017), Mehrdad et al.
(2008), Morenso-Casbas et al. (2011),
Aboshaiqah et al. (2014), Solomons and
Spross (2011), Heydari and Emami Zeydi
(2014), Sanjari et al. (2015), Oh (2008)
 
Organizational Support
(funding, infrastructures,
and research facilities)
Chang et al. (2010), Chau et al. (2008), Kang
(2015), Mehrdad et al. (2008), Omer (2012),
Sanjari et al. (2015), Srijana et al. (2016), Tan et al.
(2012), Yava et al. (2009)
 
Innovation/Research
Characteristics: Overwhelming
publication
 
Zhou et al. (2015), Srijana et al. (2016), Al
Khalaileh et al. (2016)
 
Presentation/Communication
Characteristics: Lack of
avilable literature compilation
Sari et al. (2012), Uysal et al. (2010), Yadav
and Fealy (2012), Boström et al. (2008)
 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 2019, NMJN, p-ISSN 2087-7811, e-ISSN 2406-8799

 
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”

 

"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"

Essay Writing Service