Claims

Nurses expressed no experiences or perceptions of evidence synthesis, so the review's findings map to four rather than five EBHC sub‐dimensions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? None of the extracted findings were associated with the evidence synthesis sub‐dimension of the JBI EBHC model. → Hietaniemi 2026

Evidence

Hietaniemi 2026

Hietaniemi, A.‐M., Ylimäki, S., Härkönen, H., Hannila, H.‐M., Tuomikoski, A.‐M., Oikarinen, A., Jansson, M., Pölkki, T., Kanste, O. & Kääriäinen, M. (2026). Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Evidence‐Based Healthcare Competence: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70399

q3 · i? · qualitative · r3

Meta‐aggregation of 89 extracted findings from 17 qualitative studies, categorised against the JBI EBHC model framework. The review reports that "none of the findings were associated with the sub‐dimension of evidence synthesis", which the authors call a new finding of the review.

"The synthesised findings were categorised into the four sub‐dimensions instead of five sub‐dimensions according to the JBI's EBHC model, as none of the findings were associated with the sub‐dimension of evidence synthesis"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.