Editorial
Good Research, Good Evidence, and Good Nursing Practice: A Virtuous Circle
Biological Research for Nursing 2014, Vol. 16(2) 121-122 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1099800413518423 brn.sagepub.com
Eliseth Ribeiro Lea˜o, RN, PhD1
The field of nursing research has been growing rapidly in recent decades. Much of this research has been focused on establishing or strengthening the scientific basis for clinical practice, including the prevention of disease and disability, symptom management, and enhancement of end-of-life and palliative care. Bedside nurses must have the best available evidence when making patient-care decisions. The gold standard in presenting research-based evidence is the systematic review, a comprehensive analysis of the available literature leading to judgment about the effectiveness of a practice. The Cochrane Collaboration, which just celebrated their 20th anniversary in 2013, is a not-for-profit, global network dedicated to producing and disseminating systematic reviews. A Cochrane review addresses a clearly formulated question regarding a health care intervention and investigates whether or not there is conclusive evidence about a specific treatment. Before the Collaboration embarked on its work, systematic reviews were virtually unknown in the field of health care. Initially focusing largely on medical interventions, the Collaboration has expanded to cover information relevant to other healthcare professions including nursing. The establishment of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF) in 2009 has helped raise the profile of the Collaboration in the nursing community and, conversely, has enhanced the contribution of the nursing community to the Collaboration. A search of the Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html), an online collection of databases that houses Cochrane reviews and other resources, reveals that a number of articles published in Biological Research for Nursing (BRN), for example, on topics such as mechanisms of stress and gene expression related to chronic and acute pain (Adegbola, 2009; Benfield et al., 2010), provide the raw material for Cochrane reviews. On the other hand, nurse-researchers also cite Cochrane reviews when reporting on their clinical studies exploring, for example, physiologic changes produced by the use of music in health care (Cepeda, Carr, Lau, & Alvarez, 2006; Lee et al., 2012) or immune responses resulting from nursing interventions (Papathanassoglou & Mpouzika, 2012) among others. This exchange of knowledge generated by different sources supports the consolidation of nursing science. Nursing research disseminated both by journals such as BRN and by the Cochrane Collaboration in the form of systematic
reviews is essential to best practice at all levels of health care throughout the world. For instance, antepartum bed rest, or activity restriction, defined as confinement to bed and restriction of activity except for toileting needs, has been the mainstay of treatment to prevent preterm birth. Yet, there is actually insufficient evidence to support this practice. In fact, data from a Cochrane review (Crowther & Han, 2010), which Maloni (2010) cited in a review article published in Biological Research for Nursing, demonstrated that, based on the increasing evidence that antepartum bed rest causes several adverse physiologic and psychological side effects among women and their infants, clinicians should not only stop including bed rest as a standard component of treatment for prevention of preterm birth but also should eliminate the practice altogether. It is critical that nurses have access to knowledge such as this in order to educate their patients about risks and benefits in clinical practice. Readers willing to participate in a Cochrane systematic review can visit the Cochrane website for further information (http:// www.cochrane.org/training). The Cochrane Nursing Care Field has a review support group to mentor and assist new Cochrane review authors (http://cncf.cochrane.org/home). Congratulations to the Cochrane Collaboration for 20 years of essential work and to the Cochrane Nursing Care Field for their important contributions to health care and research. May the scientific community, clinical nurses, and patients continue to benefit from their efforts for the next 20 years and beyond! Author’s Note Eliseth is a member of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF).
References Adegbola, M. A. (2009). Can heterogeneity of chronic sickle-cell disease pain be explained by genomics? A literature review. Biological Research for Nursing, 11, 81–97.
1
Research Institute, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding Author: Eliseth Ribeiro Lea˜o, RN, PhD, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av. Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sa˜o Paulo, 05652, Brazil. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from brn.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 6, 2015
122
Biological Research for Nursing 16(2)
Benfield, R. D., Hortobagyi, T., Tanner, C. J., Swanson, M., Heitkemper, M. M., & Newton, E. R. (2010). The effects of hydrotherapy on anxiety, pain, neuroendocrine responses, and contraction dynamics during labor. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 28–36. Cepeda, M. S., Carr, D. B., Lau, J., & Alvarez, H. (2006). Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD004843. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004843.pub2 Crowther, C., & Han, S. (2010). Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD000110. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000110.pub2
Lee, K.-C., Chao, Y.-H., Yiin, J.-J., Hsieh, H.-Y., Dai, W.-J., & Chao, Y.-F. (2012). Evidence that music listening reduces preoperative patients’ anxiety. Biological Research for Nursing, 14, 78–84. Maloni, J. A. (2010). Antepartum bed rest for pregnancy complications: Efficacy and safety for preventing preterm birth. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 106–124. Papathanassoglou, E. D. E., & Mpouzika, M. D. A. (2012). Interpersonal touch: Physiological effects in critical care. Biological Research for Nursing, 14, 431–443.
Downloaded from brn.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 6, 2015
Good Research, Good Evidence, and Good Nursing Practice: A Virtuous Circle
Biological Research for Nursing 2014, Vol. 16(2) 121-122 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1099800413518423 brn.sagepub.com
Eliseth Ribeiro Lea˜o, RN, PhD1
The field of nursing research has been growing rapidly in recent decades. Much of this research has been focused on establishing or strengthening the scientific basis for clinical practice, including the prevention of disease and disability, symptom management, and enhancement of end-of-life and palliative care. Bedside nurses must have the best available evidence when making patient-care decisions. The gold standard in presenting research-based evidence is the systematic review, a comprehensive analysis of the available literature leading to judgment about the effectiveness of a practice. The Cochrane Collaboration, which just celebrated their 20th anniversary in 2013, is a not-for-profit, global network dedicated to producing and disseminating systematic reviews. A Cochrane review addresses a clearly formulated question regarding a health care intervention and investigates whether or not there is conclusive evidence about a specific treatment. Before the Collaboration embarked on its work, systematic reviews were virtually unknown in the field of health care. Initially focusing largely on medical interventions, the Collaboration has expanded to cover information relevant to other healthcare professions including nursing. The establishment of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF) in 2009 has helped raise the profile of the Collaboration in the nursing community and, conversely, has enhanced the contribution of the nursing community to the Collaboration. A search of the Cochrane Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html), an online collection of databases that houses Cochrane reviews and other resources, reveals that a number of articles published in Biological Research for Nursing (BRN), for example, on topics such as mechanisms of stress and gene expression related to chronic and acute pain (Adegbola, 2009; Benfield et al., 2010), provide the raw material for Cochrane reviews. On the other hand, nurse-researchers also cite Cochrane reviews when reporting on their clinical studies exploring, for example, physiologic changes produced by the use of music in health care (Cepeda, Carr, Lau, & Alvarez, 2006; Lee et al., 2012) or immune responses resulting from nursing interventions (Papathanassoglou & Mpouzika, 2012) among others. This exchange of knowledge generated by different sources supports the consolidation of nursing science. Nursing research disseminated both by journals such as BRN and by the Cochrane Collaboration in the form of systematic
reviews is essential to best practice at all levels of health care throughout the world. For instance, antepartum bed rest, or activity restriction, defined as confinement to bed and restriction of activity except for toileting needs, has been the mainstay of treatment to prevent preterm birth. Yet, there is actually insufficient evidence to support this practice. In fact, data from a Cochrane review (Crowther & Han, 2010), which Maloni (2010) cited in a review article published in Biological Research for Nursing, demonstrated that, based on the increasing evidence that antepartum bed rest causes several adverse physiologic and psychological side effects among women and their infants, clinicians should not only stop including bed rest as a standard component of treatment for prevention of preterm birth but also should eliminate the practice altogether. It is critical that nurses have access to knowledge such as this in order to educate their patients about risks and benefits in clinical practice. Readers willing to participate in a Cochrane systematic review can visit the Cochrane website for further information (http:// www.cochrane.org/training). The Cochrane Nursing Care Field has a review support group to mentor and assist new Cochrane review authors (http://cncf.cochrane.org/home). Congratulations to the Cochrane Collaboration for 20 years of essential work and to the Cochrane Nursing Care Field for their important contributions to health care and research. May the scientific community, clinical nurses, and patients continue to benefit from their efforts for the next 20 years and beyond! Author’s Note Eliseth is a member of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF).
References Adegbola, M. A. (2009). Can heterogeneity of chronic sickle-cell disease pain be explained by genomics? A literature review. Biological Research for Nursing, 11, 81–97.
1
Research Institute, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding Author: Eliseth Ribeiro Lea˜o, RN, PhD, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Av. Albert Einstein, 627/701, Sa˜o Paulo, 05652, Brazil. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from brn.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 6, 2015
122
Biological Research for Nursing 16(2)
Benfield, R. D., Hortobagyi, T., Tanner, C. J., Swanson, M., Heitkemper, M. M., & Newton, E. R. (2010). The effects of hydrotherapy on anxiety, pain, neuroendocrine responses, and contraction dynamics during labor. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 28–36. Cepeda, M. S., Carr, D. B., Lau, J., & Alvarez, H. (2006). Music for pain relief. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD004843. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004843.pub2 Crowther, C., & Han, S. (2010). Hospitalisation and bed rest for multiple pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD000110. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000110.pub2
Lee, K.-C., Chao, Y.-H., Yiin, J.-J., Hsieh, H.-Y., Dai, W.-J., & Chao, Y.-F. (2012). Evidence that music listening reduces preoperative patients’ anxiety. Biological Research for Nursing, 14, 78–84. Maloni, J. A. (2010). Antepartum bed rest for pregnancy complications: Efficacy and safety for preventing preterm birth. Biological Research for Nursing, 12, 106–124. Papathanassoglou, E. D. E., & Mpouzika, M. D. A. (2012). Interpersonal touch: Physiological effects in critical care. Biological Research for Nursing, 14, 431–443.
Downloaded from brn.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on April 6, 2015
