The knowledge of nursing as a practice is remarkable in depth and breadth. It consists of a diversity of concepts, practices, conventions, and assumptions embedded in a framework of caring practice.
Since I started nursing in 1964, (as a 16-year-old nursing cadet) I’ve been privileged to be part of a number of fascinating jobs. From working on the mission field in Papua New Guinea, establishing nursing development units in Burford and Oxford, establishing Australia’s first university School of Nursing as Australia’s first Professor of Nursing, establishing the School of Health at the University of New England and establishing and leading, until my retirement, the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Whilst nursing today is very different to the 1960s, the fundamental role of nursing remains unchanged. Nowadays, nursing is said to be evidence-based, and many countries have established centres for evidence-based health care, evidence-based medicine and evidence-based nursing. There are Cochrane Centres across the world, and the Joanna Briggs Institute has collaborating centres in over 100 countries across all populated continents of the world.
Put simply, evidence-based practice is the combination of individual, clinical or professional expertise with the best available evidence. This practice is then most likely to lead to a positive outcome for a client or patient.
However, the concept is not without debate. One of the biggest controversies relates to what counts as strong evidence. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often seen as the “gold standard” in evidencing effectiveness, with other quantitative methods ranked lower in quality in terms of evidence. The results of interpretive and critical research are also not regarded as high quality evidence.
While RCTs are probably the “best” approach to generating effective evidence, nurses need more than just the answers to cause-and-effect questions. This is reflected in the wide range of research approaches used in the nursing field to generate knowledge for practice.
In 1999, I argued for a pluralistic approach when considering “what counts as evidence” for health care practices (Pearson,1999; Pearson, Wiechula and Lockwood, 2007; Pearson, Jordan and Munn, 2012). Evans and Pearson (2001) suggest that reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods are of importance to most practitioners.
This inclusive approach of what makes valid evidence for practice is becoming more widely accepted across all the evidence-based organisations and centres. This is a great advancement for nursing, given its multiple sources of knowledge.
Since I started nursing in 1964, (as a 16-year-old nursing cadet) I’ve been privileged to be part of a number of fascinating jobs. From working on the mission field in Papua New Guinea, establishing nursing development units in Burford and Oxford, establishing Australia’s first university School of Nursing as Australia’s first Professor of Nursing, establishing the School of Health at the University of New England and establishing and leading, until my retirement, the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Whilst nursing today is very different to the 1960s, the fundamental role of nursing remains unchanged. Nowadays, nursing is said to be evidence-based, and many countries have established centres for evidence-based health care, evidence-based medicine and evidence-based nursing. There are Cochrane Centres across the world, and the Joanna Briggs Institute has collaborating centres in over 100 countries across all populated continents of the world.
Put simply, evidence-based practice is the combination of individual, clinical or professional expertise with the best available evidence. This practice is then most likely to lead to a positive outcome for a client or patient.
However, the concept is not without debate. One of the biggest controversies relates to what counts as strong evidence. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often seen as the “gold standard” in evidencing effectiveness, with other quantitative methods ranked lower in quality in terms of evidence. The results of interpretive and critical research are also not regarded as high quality evidence.
While RCTs are probably the “best” approach to generating effective evidence, nurses need more than just the answers to cause-and-effect questions. This is reflected in the wide range of research approaches used in the nursing field to generate knowledge for practice.
In 1999, I argued for a pluralistic approach when considering “what counts as evidence” for health care practices (Pearson,1999; Pearson, Wiechula and Lockwood, 2007; Pearson, Jordan and Munn, 2012). Evans and Pearson (2001) suggest that reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods are of importance to most practitioners.
This inclusive approach of what makes valid evidence for practice is becoming more widely accepted across all the evidence-based organisations and centres. This is a great advancement for nursing, given its multiple sources of knowledge.
References
Evans D. and Pearson A. (2001) Systematic Reviews: ‘Gatekeepers of Nursing Knowledge’. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10(5): 593-599.
Pearson A. (1999) 'Getting our act together' in nursing’, International Journal of Nursing Practice, 5(1):1
Pearson, A, Jordan, Z, Munn, Z, 2012, Translational science and evidence-based healthcare: a clarification and reconceptualisation of how knowledge is generated and used in healthcare, Nursing Research and Practice, 2012
Pearson A., Wiechula R., Court A. and Lockwood C. (2007) A re-consideration of what constitutes "evidence" in the healthcare professions, Nursing Science Quarterly, 20(1): 85-8.
Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
