Preprint
Article
Nurses’ Perceptions of Barriers to Research Utilization in Clinical Practice in Sabah, Malaysia
This version is not peer-reviewed.
Submitted:
18 March 2025
Posted:
18 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been widely adopted in clinical nursing practice, with nursing education efforts consistently emphasizing its importance in strengthening implementation efforts. Despite these efforts to promote translational research, the level of evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation in clinical nursing practice remains unsatisfactory. This study aimed to explore the barri-ers to research utilization in clinical settings, as perceived by nurses in Malaysia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019 using the BARRIERS Scale, a validated tool that measures perceived barriers to research utilization across four do-mains: organizational barriers, nurses' research awareness and values, quality of re-search, and research communication. The study involved nurses from five tertiary hospitals in Sabah, Malaysia. Results: A total of 562 nurses participated in the study, with a mean age of 34.3 years (SD = 7.96) and mean duration of clinical practice of 10.0 years (SD = 7.58). Half of the nurses (53.9%) had a moderate understanding of EBP. Using the BARRIERS questionnaire, the top three prominent barriers perceived by nurses were ‘the nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures’(35.9%), ‘the nurse does not have time to read research’ (27.8%), and ‘re-search reports/articles are not published fast enough’ (25.8%). Among the four do-mains, organizational barriers scored highest (mean=2.7, SD=0.72), followed by re-search communication (mean=2.6, SD=0.73). Conclusions: The study findings em-phasize the challenges nurses encounter in integrating research into clinical practice and highlight the need for ongoing efforts to promote evidence-based practice and re-search utilization among nurses in Sabah while addressing the identified gaps.
Keywords:
evidence-based nursing
; evidence-based practice
; nursing
; barriers
; Malaysia
1. Introduction
Research utilization in clinical practice is essential for the advancement of evidence-based nursing; however, nurses often encounter barriers that impede the integration of research findings into patient care. Integrating research findings into daily nursing practice bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, enabling nurses to make informed decisions based on current and reliable evidence. This approach not only enhances the quality of patient care but also promotes cost-effectiveness and efficiency in healthcare delivery [1].
The recognition of barriers to research utilization in nursing has evolved in several ways over time, as evidenced by systematic reviews of existing studies [2,3]. While the most commonly reported barriers have remained largely consistent since the early 1990s, primarily focusing on organizational factors such as lack of time, inadequate resources, and insufficient authority, there have been notable changes in how these barriers are studied and understood in different contexts.
In recent years, the geographical focus of studies on barriers to research utilization has expanded from primarily Western countries to include more research in Asia, Africa, and North America. Interestingly, despite geographical and cultural diversity, nurses across different regions report similar barriers, such as lack of time, support, and resources, as well as difficulties in understanding statistical analyses [4,5]. These barriers are not only persistent over time but also consistent across continents, indicating a commonality in the challenges faced by nursing professionals [2]. Moreover, factors such as insufficient organizational support, lack of nurses’ research skills, and research communication or accessibility issues have been identified as significant predictors of perceived barriers [6,7,8,9].
While many of these barriers to research utilization are commonly encountered across countries, context-specific factors also exist. Evidence from a local setting is imperative to explore and better understand the unique and context-specific barriers to facilitating efforts and policies that are responsive to addressing these barriers. While there have been studies examining evidence-based practice in Malaysia among various healthcare practitioners [10], the specific barriers to research utilization among nurses in clinical practice in Sabah, Malaysia, remain unexplored. Previous studies have investigated the knowledge, attitudes, and barriers to EBP among medical practitioners [10,11] and assessed EBP implementation among nurses in peninsular Malaysia [11]. However, there is limited understanding of the challenges nurses face, specifically in Sabah. Given that barriers to EBP implementation can vary by region and healthcare setting, evidence from this local setting is imperative to better understand the unique and context-specific barriers to facilitate efforts and policies that are responsive to addressing these barriers.
This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of barriers to research utilization in clinical practice among nurses in Sabah, Malaysia. We also investigated the possible factors associated with the total mean scores of the questionnaire used to evaluate the perceived barriers to research utilization.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Settings
This cross-sectional study was conducted between July and December 2019 among nurses from five main hospitals in Sabah, Malaysia. These five hospitals were selected because they are the five largest tertiary-level hospitals that cater to the majority of the population in the state of Sabah, Malaysia. Being the largest hospitals, they also had the largest number of nurses with varying levels of experience, as junior nurses are often placed in these centers for early career training.
2.2. Study Population and Sampling
Eligible and practicing nurses from each hospital were randomly sampled and invited to participate in the study. The recruited nurses should have at least one year of clinical experience to ensure that they have undergone mentorship programs and have sufficient clinical experience and exposure to identify barriers that they perceive as important to evidence-based practice.
The minimum sample size required for the study was calculated using a sample size calculator to estimate the mean [12]. Using the highest SD (1.22) reported in a previous study [7], to achieve a precision of 0.25, the required sample size was 92. A non-response rate of 20% was considered; therefore, this study recruited 110 participants (92 participants plus 20%) from each of the hospitals involved. The total number of participants anticipated for this study was 550, with 110 participants from each of the five hospitals involved.
2.3. Data Collection
Questionnaires and informed consent forms were distributed by members of the study team to the ward managers in each ward or clinic, where the participants were selected. The purpose of the study was explained in detail in the informed consent form, and a copy of the form was provided to each participant. After participants provided written consent to participate, a questionnaire was administered to them, and they returned the completed questionnaires to the investigator within two weeks.
2.4. Research Instrument
This study utilized the BARRIERS questionnaire, a validated tool widely used to assess barriers to research utilization in nursing practice [2,13]. The BARRIERS scale consists of 29 items categorized into four subscales: organizational barriers, nurses' research awareness and values, quality of research, and research communication. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert Scale (0 = no opinion, 1 = to no extent, 2 = to a little extent, 3 = to a moderate extent, and 4 = to a great extent). Permission to use the BARRIERS Scale was obtained from the original author [14].
2.5. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis was used to describe the participants’ demographic features, the components of the questionnaire, and the attributes of the subscales of the BARRIERS Scale. Mean, standard deviation, and percentage values were used to determine the results. The mean total score on the BARRIERS scale was compared between the groups of variables of interest using an independent t-test or One-Way ANOVA. The variables examined included years of experience in the clinical field, highest level of education attained, familiarity with EBP, and perceived understanding of EBP.
2.6. Ethical Considerations
This study was registered in the National Medical Research Register (NMRR), and ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of the Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
3. Results
A total of 562 nurses were recruited for this study. While the initial target was 550 participants (110 from each of the five hospitals), the number was slightly higher due to additional interest from eligible nurses at some of the participating hospitals. All nurses who were approached and who met the inclusion criteria agreed to participate in the study.
The mean age of the participants was 34.3 years (SD = 7.96). The mean practice in clinical years was 10.0 years (SD = 7.58). As shown in Table 1, the majority of the participants (86.1%, n=484) had diplomas as their highest academic qualification, while 8.2% (n=46) held bachelor's degrees, and 2.8% (n=16) held certificates or advanced diplomas. Most participants (78.1%, n=439) had acquired academic qualifications from government educational institutions, with the remainder (21.9%, n=123) from private institutions.
Among the participants, nearly two-thirds (66.5%, n=370) reported having heard of evidence-based practice (EBP), as presented in Table 2. When asked where they learned about EBP, participants most commonly reported their study place (33.7%, n=106) or workplace (32.1%, n=101), followed by workshops (15.9%, n=50), books/journal articles (9.8%, n=31), and online sources (7.3%, n=23). Approximately half (n=282, 53.9%) of the respondents considered their knowledge of EBP to be moderate, while only 7.3% (n=38) reported understanding EBP very well, and 38.8% (n=203) reported not being familiar with EBP.
Approximately 67.0% (n=354) of the participants indicated that they had sought information or research evidence to help them in their clinical practice. When asked about their information-seeking practices, the most common approach was conducting general online searches (91.2%, n=498), followed by seeking colleagues' or nurse managers' opinions (61.0%, n=333), reading nursing textbooks and practice guidelines (60.9%, n=332), and reading nursing journals/publications (45.8%, n=250). Online searches were perceived as both the most important source (39.8%, n=171) and the most common approach (68.3%, n=298) used by nurses to seek information and research evidence.
Using the BARRIERS questionnaire (Table A1), among those who perceived barrier items to be barriers "to a great extent," the top five barriers identified were: 1) the nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures (35.9%, n=202), 2) the nurse does not have time to read research (27.8%, n=156), 3) research reports/articles are not published fast enough (25.8%, n=145), 4) there is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas (25.7%, n=144), and 5) the nurse feels results are not generalizable to own setting (25.1%, n=141).
This study found that most of the nurses surveyed perceived barriers to research utilization as 'to a moderate extent' for most of the items asked. Among these nurses, the top five items perceived as barriers to a moderate extent were: 1) research reports/articles are not readily available (56.4%, n=317), 2) implications for practice are not made clear (53.7%, n=302), 3) the research has not been replicated (50.1%, n=281), 4) statistical analyses are not understandable (48.9%, n=273), and 5) the nurse does not feel capable of evaluating the quality of the research (48.2%, n=271).
We also investigated possible factors associated with the total mean scores, but none of the variables of interest were found to be significant when the total scores were compared (Table 3). Nurses with ≤14 years of clinical experience had a slightly higher mean total score (75.2, SD=18.57) than those with ≥15 years of experience (74.4, SD=22.42), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.721). Similarly, no significant differences were found between diploma and bachelor's degree holders (p=0.145), between those who had or had not heard about EBP (p=0.138), or among the different levels of perceived understanding of EBP (p=0.093).
Among the subscales in the questionnaire, organizational barriers were evaluated as the highest, with a mean score of 2.7 (SD = 0.72), followed by research communication (mean score 2.6, SD = 0.73), nurses' research awareness and values (mean score 2.6, SD = 0.76), and quality of research (mean score 2.5, SD = 0.79).
4. Discussion
The findings of this study inform EBP practice among nurses in Sabah, Malaysia, particularly regarding their perceived barriers to research utilization in clinical practice. Majority of the nurses in our study reported having heard about EBP (66.5%), but only 7.3% felt that they understood it very well. This suggests a significant gap between awareness and in-depth understanding of EBP. Previous studies in various settings have reported similar results. Although nurses in China are aware of EBP concepts, only a small proportion report high confidence in their EBP skills [9]. Similarly, low levels of comprehensive understanding of research utilization among nurses in Nepal have been reported despite reasonable awareness levels [8]. This pattern highlights the need to address the knowledge-practice gap in future training and continuing nursing education efforts.
The study also found that general online searches were the most common practice among nurses seeking information or research evidence (91.2%), and that evidence from these sources was perceived as both common (68.3%) and important (39.8%). While it is encouraging that the majority of nurses reported searching for information or research evidence to support their clinical practice, the heavy reliance on general online searches and colleagues' opinions (61.0%) is concerning, as the quality and reliability of such evidence may be inconsistent without expert peer review. Comparatively, a smaller proportion of nurses utilized peer-reviewed sources such as nursing journals/publications (45.8%). This finding aligns with a Korean study [5] that found that Korean nurses predominantly relied on informal knowledge sources rather than research literature. This pattern highlights the need to improve access to and training in the use of evidence-based resources.
Using the BARRIERS questionnaire, we investigated perceived barriers to research utilization in clinical practice and found that organizational barriers were the most significant obstacles across all domains (mean score 2.7, SD = 0.72). Among the items perceived to be barriers "to a great extent,” four of the top five belonged to the organizational barrier category: 1) the nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures (35.9%), 2) the nurse does not have time to read research (27.8%, n=156), 3) there is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas (25.7%, n=144), and 4) the nurse feels results are not generalizable to own setting (25.1%, n=141). In a systematic review, organizational factors were consistently identified as significant obstacles in multiple studies and settings worldwide [2]. Similarly, limitations in authority, insufficient resources and facilities, and absence of managerial support were among the most commonly reported barriers across geographical regions and practice settings [3].
Our findings revealed that a majority of the nurses surveyed perceived most barriers to research utilization as occurring "to a moderate extent." This middle-range perception suggests that while these barriers do not completely prevent research utilization, they significantly hinder the implementation of evidence-based practices in clinical settings. The top five barriers endorsed at this level deserve particular attention in the future.
Research reports and articles not being readily available (56.4%) emerged as the most commonly endorsed moderate barrier, highlighting significant access problems. This finding corresponds with nurses' reported information-seeking behaviors, where they predominantly rely on general online searches rather than peer-reviewed literature. Similarly, the perception that the implications for practice are not made clear (53.7%) reflects a communication gap between researchers and clinical practitioners that impedes the practical application of research findings.
The concern that research has not been replicated (50.1%) suggests that nurses value evidence reliability and are hesitant to implement changes based on single studies. This barrier highlights the need for nursing education to emphasize critical appraisal skills to help practitioners evaluate the strength and quality of the available evidence. The difficulty in understanding statistical analyses (48.9%) further supports this need, as quantitative literacy is essential for interpreting the research findings.
Finally, the fact that 48.2% of nurses did not feel capable of evaluating research quality (48.2%) reveals a self-efficacy gap that affects their confidence in implementing evidence-based changes. This perception likely stems from limited training in research methodology and critical appraisal during nursing education and professional development courses.
These moderate barriers differed from those rated as "great extent" barriers, which focused more on organizational constraints such as authority, time, and generalizability. Moderate barriers predominantly related to research accessibility, communication, and nurses' research literacy. These findings suggest that while organizational changes are necessary to address the most severe barriers, improving research communication and enhancing nurses' research skills could mitigate many of the moderate barriers that collectively impede evidence-based practice implementation.
Interventions tailored to address these moderate barriers may include the development of user-friendly research databases, creation of practice-oriented research summaries, promotion of replication studies, provision of statistical literacy training, and enhancement of critical appraisal skills through continuing education. Such targeted approaches could help bridge the research-practice gap that persists despite the growing awareness of evidence-based practice among nursing professionals in Malaysia.
Interestingly, our further analysis found no significant differences in perceived barriers based on years of clinical experience, educational level, or familiarity with EBP among the study participants. This suggests that barriers to research utilization in Malaysia are pervasive across different groups of nurses and may be more related to systemic and organizational factors than to individual characteristics. Our results are consistent with those from Jordan, Iran, and international critical care settings, where similar patterns were observed [15,16,17]. However, this observation may be context-specific, as studies in other settings, such as Korea, Cyprus, and China, found that educational background, understanding of evidence-based practice, and research experience were associated with perceived barriers among nurses [5,9,18].
The study findings have several implications for nursing practice and education in Malaysia. First, targeted educational interventions are needed to improve nurses' understanding of EBP and research utilization. Healthcare organizations should implement strategies to address time constraints and empower nurses to implement evidence-based changes in practice. Next, improving access to high-quality and easily understandable research resources is crucial for advancing evidence-based nursing. Finally, fostering a culture of collaboration and knowledge sharing among nurses could help overcome the feeling of isolation in research utilization, ultimately enhancing the integration of evidence into clinical practice.
This study draws strength from the diverse representation of nurses across their experience and academic qualifications, randomly sampled from tertiary training hospitals in Sabah, Malaysia. This is one of the largest studies on this study’s scope to investigate barriers to research utilization in clinical practice involving nurses in Malaysia. Therefore, it provides locally relevant input for future efforts to address these barriers and improve research utilization and EBP in nursing.
Although this study provides valuable insights, it is limited by its cross-sectional nature and reliance on self-reported data. Future research could benefit from longitudinal designs to track changes in perceived barriers over time and interventional studies to test strategies for overcoming these barriers.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, although nurses in Malaysia are aware of EBP, significant barriers remain in translating this awareness into practice. Addressing these barriers requires a multifaceted approach involving individual nurses, healthcare organizations, and nursing education programs. By doing so, the nursing profession can move closer to the goal of evidence-based practice, ultimately improving patient care.
Author Contributions
For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, T.P.S.K. and A.R.S.; methodology, J.G.; software, P.B.P.; validation, Y.K.Y., L.P. and D.D.; formal analysis, N.S.; investigation, N.T.; resources, T.P.S.K.; data curation, N.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.; writing—review and editing, N.S., and T.P.S.K; supervision, J.G.; project administration, A.R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of Ministry of Health, Malaysia (NMRR-19-874-46962 dated 30th May 2019).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The article includes the data, and the link to access this data is provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AAKxqrAa3PjEQfmhaaZknJlEJG5UFWrg/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 12 March 2025).
Public Involvement Statement
No public involvement in any aspect of this research.
Guidelines and Standards Statement
This manuscript was drafted against the STROBE (The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies) for cross-sectional research.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
The authors acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of this manuscript. Specifically, Claude 3.7 Sonnet was used to assist in formatting the manuscript according to journal requirements and enhancing language clarity. Additionally, Paper Pal has been used for English language editing and grammar improvements. The authors reviewed and edited all the content generated by these tools and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the Director General of Health Malaysia for granting permission to publish this study.
This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper titled 'Perceptions of barriers to research utilization in clinical practice among nurses in Sabah, which was presented at the 16th National Conference for Clinical Research at Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, September 20-22, 2023 [19].
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1
Table A1.
Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) among the respondents.
| Subscale | Item | This is a barrier | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | |||||||||||
| To no extent | To a little extent | To a moderate extent | To a great extent | No opinion | |||||||
| RC | Research reports/articles are not readily available | 26 | (4.6) | 112 | (19.9) | 317 | (56.4) | 74 | (13.2) | 33 | (5.9) |
| RC | Implications for practice are not made clear | 27 | (4.8) | 128 | (22.8) | 302 | (53.7) | 76 | (13.5) | 29 | (5.2) |
| RC | Statistical analyses are not understandable | 33 | (5.9) | 132 | (23.7) | 273 | (48.9) | 97 | (17.4) | 23 | (4.1) |
| RC | The research is not relevant to the nurse’s practice | 81 | (14.5) | 149 | (26.6) | 211 | (37.7) | 69 | (12.3) | 50 | (8.9) |
| NRAV | The nurse is unaware of the research | 45 | (8.0) | 112 | (19.9) | 235 | (41.8) | 136 | (24.2) | 34 | (6.0) |
| OB | The facilities are inadequate for implementation | 29 | (5.2) | 116 | (20.6) | 257 | (45.7) | 129 | (23.0) | 31 | (5.5) |
| OB | The nurse does not have time to read research | 30 | (5.3) | 132 | (23.5) | 221 | (39.3) | 156 | (27.8) | 23 | (4.1) |
| QR | The research has not been replicated | 27 | (4.8) | 115 | (20.5) | 281 | (50.1) | 92 | (16.4) | 46 | (8.2) |
| NRAV | The nurse feels the benefits of changing practice will be minimal | 32 | (5.7) | 104 | (18.5) | 260 | (46.3) | 107 | (19.1) | 58 | (10.3) |
| QR | The nurse is uncertain whether to believe the results of the research | 32 | (5.7) | 121 | (21.6) | 253 | (45.2) | 88 | (15.7) | 66 | (11.8) |
| QR | The research has methodological inadequacies | 27 | (4.8) | 145 | (25.8) | 236 | (42.0) | 91 | (16.2) | 62 | (11.0) |
| RC | The relevant literature is not compiled in one place | 24 | (4.3) | 104 | (18.5) | 259 | (46.2) | 126 | (22.4) | 48 | (8.5) |
| OB | The nurse does not feel she/he has enough authority to change patient care procedures | 29 | (5.2) | 75 | (13.3) | 216 | (38.4) | 202 | (35.9) | 40 | (7.1) |
| OB | The nurse feels results are not generalizable to own setting | 25 | (4.4) | 118 | (21.0) | 242 | (43.1) | 141 | (25.1) | 36 | (6.4) |
| NRAV | The nurse is isolated from knowledgeable colleagues with whom to discuss the research | 40 | (7.1) | 135 | (24.0) | 232 | (41.4) | 110 | (19.6) | 44 | (7.8) |
| NRAV | The nurse sees little benefit for self | 35 | (6.2) | 145 | (25.8) | 245 | (43.6) | 88 | (15.7) | 49 | (8.7) |
| QR | Research reports/articles are not published fast enough | 29 | (5.2) | 101 | (18.0) | 236 | (42.1) | 145 | (25.8) | 50 | (8.9) |
| OB | Physicians will not cooperate with implementation | 37 | (6.6) | 128 | (22.8) | 226 | (40.3) | 111 | (19.8) | 59 | (10.5) |
| OB | Administration will not allow implementation | 34 | (6.1) | 141 | (25.2) | 235 | (42.0) | 76 | (13.6) | 74 | (13.2) |
| NRAV | The nurse does not see the value of research for practice | 47 | (8.4) | 147 | (26.2) | 232 | (41.3) | 89 | (15.8) | 47 | (8.4) |
| NRAV | There is not a documented need to change practice | 33 | (5.9) | 110 | (19.6) | 257 | (45.7) | 105 | (18.7) | 57 | (10.1) |
| QR | The conclusions drawn from the research are not justified | 29 | (5.2) | 148 | (26.3) | 239 | (42.5) | 63 | (11.2) | 83 | (14.8) |
| QR | The literature reports conflicting results | 35 | (6.3) | 130 | (23.2) | 235 | (42.0) | 91 | (16.3) | 69 | (12.3) |
| RC | The research is not reported clearly and readably | 29 | (5.2) | 145 | (25.8) | 221 | (39.4) | 107 | (19.1) | 59 | (10.5) |
| OB | Other staff are not supportive of implementation | 47 | (8.4) | 94 | (16.7) | 229 | (40.7) | 134 | (23.8) | 58 | (10.3) |
| NRAV | The nurse is unwilling to change/try new ideas | 74 | (13.2) | 112 | (20.0) | 215 | (38.3) | 113 | (20.1) | 47 | (8.4) |
| QR | The amount of research information is overwhelming | 32 | (5.7) | 130 | (23.2) | 256 | (45.6) | 84 | (15.0) | 59 | (10.5) |
| NRAV | The nurse does not feel capable of evaluating the quality of the research | 30 | (5.3) | 110 | (19.6) | 271 | (48.2) | 104 | (18.5) | 46 | (8.2) |
| OB | There is insufficient time on the job to implement new ideas | 34 | (6.1) | 103 | (18.4) | 251 | (44.8) | 144 | (25.7) | 28 | (5.0) |
NRAV = Nurses’ research awareness & values, OB = organizational barriers, QR = Quality of research, RC = Research communication.
References
- Connor, L.; Dean, J.; McNett, M.; Tydings, D.M.; Shrout, A.; Gorsuch, P.F.; Hole, A.; Moore, L.; Brown, R.; Melnyk, B.M.; et al. Evidence-based Practice Improves Patient Outcomes and Healthcare System Return on Investment: Findings from a Scoping Review. Worldviews Ev Based Nurs 2023, 20, 6–15. [CrossRef]
- Berthelsen, C.; Hølge-Hazelton, B. The Importance of Context and Organization Culture in the Understanding of Nurses’ Barriers Against Research Utilization: A Systematic Review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2021, 18, 111–117. [CrossRef]
- Kajermo, K.N.; Boström, A.-M.; Thompson, D.S.; Hutchinson, A.M.; Estabrooks, C.A.; Wallin, L. The BARRIERS Scale -- the Barriers to Research Utilization Scale: A Systematic Review. 2010. [CrossRef]
- Aljezawi, M.; Al Qadire, M.; Alhajjy, M.H.; Tawalbeh, L.I.; Alamery, A.H.; Aloush, S.; ALBashtawy, M. Barriers to Integrating Research Into Clinical Nursing Practice. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 2019, 34. [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Yang, I.-S. Clinical Nurses’ Perception on Barriers to Research Utilization. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs 2015, 22, 198–206. [CrossRef]
- Kajermo, K.N.; Undén, M.; Gardulf, A.; Eriksson, L.E.; Orton, M.-L.; Arnetz, B.B.; Nordström, G. Predictors of Nurses’ Perceptions of Barriers to Research Utilization. J Nurs Manag 2008, 16, 305–314. [CrossRef]
- Shifaza, F.; Evans, D.; Bradley, H. Nurses’ Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Implement EBP in the Maldives. Advances in Nursing 2014, 2014, 698604. [CrossRef]
- Srijana, K.C.; Subramaniam, P.R.; Paudel, S. Barriers and Facilitators of Utilizing Research among Nurses in Nepal. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 2016, 47, 171–179. [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.-P.; Jiang, X.-L.; Wang, L.; Wang, G.-R.; Bai, Y.-J. Barriers to and Facilitators of Research Utilization: A Survey of Registered Nurses in China. PLoS One 2013, 8, e81908. [CrossRef]
- Lai, N.M.; Teng, C.L.; Lee, M.L. The Place and Barriers of Evidence Based Practice: Knowledge and Perceptions of Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Practitioners in Malaysia. BMC Res Notes 2010, 3, 279. [CrossRef]
- Sivasangari, S., Krishinan, S., Thandapani, R. U., Rostenberghe, H. V., & Berahim, A. Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Care: Evidence Based Practice and Seniority. 9, 77–88.
- Naing, L.; Winn, T.; Rusli, B.N. Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies. Archive of Orofacial Sciences 2006, 1, 9–14.
- Ozga, D.; Krupa, S.; Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska, W.; Penar-Zadarko, B. Adaptation and Validation of the Barriers to Research Utilization (BARRIERS Scale) Questionnaire among Polish Nurses and Midwives: Cross-Sectional Study. Applied Nursing Research 2022, 63, 151547. [CrossRef]
- Funk, S.G.; Champagne, M.T.; Wiese, R.A.; Tornquist, E.M. Barriers to Using Research Findings in Practice: The Clinician’s Perspective. Applied Nursing Research 1991, 4, 90–95. [CrossRef]
- Khalaileh, M.A.; Qadire, M.A.; Musa, A.S.; Rn, O.A.A.-K.; Qudah, H.A.; Alhabahbeh, A. Closing the Gap between Research Evidence and Clinical Practice: Jordanian Nurses’ Perceived Barriers to Research Utilisation. Journal of Education and Practice 2016.
- Hosseini-Moghaddam, F.; Mohammadpour, A.; Bahri, N.; Mojalli, M. Nursing Managers’ Perspectives on Facilitators of and Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nurs Open 2023, 10, 6237–6247. [CrossRef]
- Poiroux, L.; Bruyneel, A.; Larcin, L.; Fossat, G.; Kamel, T.; Labro, G.; Goursaud, S.; Rouze, A.; Heming, N.; Hermann, B. Barriers to Research Findings Utilization amongst Critical Care Nurses and Allied Health Professionals: An International Survey. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2024, 81, 103610. [CrossRef]
- Pitsillidou, M.; Roupa, Z.; Farmakas, A.; Noula, M. Factors Affecting the Application and Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing. Acta Inform Med 2021, 29, 281–287. [CrossRef]
- Sulaiman, N.; Tok, P.S.K.; Gimbo, J.; Saptu, A.R.; Philip, P.B.; Yau, K.Y.; Pengui, L.; Dalie, D.; Tinggal, N. Perceptions of Barriers to Research Utilization in Clinical Practice among Nurses in Sabah. Med J Malaysia 2023, 78, 17.
Table 1.
Demographic of nurses participated in the study (n = 562).
| Sociodemographic | Variables | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Years 1 | 34.3 | 7.96 |
| Years as a clinical nurse | Years 1 |
10.0 | 7.58 |
| Qualification | Certificate Diploma Advanced Diploma Bachelor |
16 484 16 46 |
2.8 86.1 2.8 8.2 |
|
Education institutional status |
Government Private |
439 123 |
78.1 21.9 |
1 Mean (SD).
Table 2.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) perceived among the respondents.
| Item | Variables | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Have heard about EBP? n = 556 |
Yes | 370 | 66.5 |
|
Where was it is mentioned? n = 315 |
Workshop Study place Workplace Book/ Journal article Online Not remember |
50 106 101 31 23 4 |
15.9 33.7 32.1 9.8 7.3 1.3 |
|
How well do you think you understand EBP? n = 523 |
Very well Moderate Not familiar |
38 282 203 |
7.3 53.9 38.8 |
|
Do you search for information or research evidence to help you in your clinical practice? n = 528 |
Yes | 354 | 67.0 |
|
Where do you look for information or research evidence? Participant can answer more than one |
Colleagues or nurse managers opinion | 333 | 61.0 |
| Search online information (general search) | 498 | 91.2 | |
| Read specifically nursing journals/ publications |
250 |
45.8 | |
| Read nursing textbooks and practice guidelines |
332 | 60.9 | |
|
The most IMPORTANT information source n = 430 |
Search online Textbooks and practices guidelines Journals/ publications Colleagues or nurse managers opinion Others |
171 109 79 66 5 |
39.8 25.3 18.4 15.3 0.5 |
|
The most COMMON source use n = 436 |
Search online Textbooks and practices guidelines Colleagues or nurse managers opinion Journals/ publications Others |
298 64 48 22 4 |
68.3 14.7 11.0 5.0 0.7 |
Table 3.
Comparison of total score among group of variables of interest.
| Variables | n | Mean (SD) | Mean diff a | P-value a |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Years of clinical experience ≤ 14 years 15 years |
435 104 |
75.2 (18.57) 74.4 (22.42) |
0.8 (-3.8, 5.5) |
0.721b |
|
Level of education Diploma Bachelor |
469 42 |
75.9 (18.09) 80. 1 (18.38) |
-4.3 (-10.0,1.5) |
0.145 |
|
Have heard about EBP? Yes No |
353 183 |
76.1 (18.62) 73.5 (20.67) |
-2.6 (-6.1,0.8) |
0.138 |
|
Individual's perceived understanding of EBP Very well Moderate Not familiar |
36 271 198 |
72.9 (17.21) 76.9 (17.96) 73.1 (21.43) |
- | 0.093 c |
a Independent t-test; b Equal variances not assumed; c One-way ANOVA.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Downloads
50
Views
52
Comments
0
Subscription
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated