• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • International Differences in Nursing Research, 2005–2006

    Author
    Polit, Denise
    Beck, Cheryl Tatano
    Year published
    2009
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Purpose: To compare the characteristics of nursing research being done in different countries, using data from studies published in nonspecialty, English-language nursing journals. Design: Data for this cross-sectional analysis were retrieved from a consecutive sample of 1,072 studies published in eight leading English-language research journals in 2005 and 2006. Methods: For each study, data were extracted on the characteristics of the study participants and authors, study focus-specialty area, funding, and methodologic attributes. Studies from 15 countries or regional groupings were compared. Findings: International differences in authors, participants, and study characteristics were typically large and statistically significant. Studies that were focused on nurses were especially prevalent in Europe, Australia, and Canada, whereas patient-centered studies were most common in Asian countries and the US. Qualitative studies were predominant in Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Asian nurse researchers, by contrast, undertook mostly quantitative studies, and were especially likely to conduct intervention research. Significant country differences existed in the omission of demographic (age and sex) information about participants, with omissions most prevalent in the UK and Ireland and least prevalent in Asian countries. Research funding was reported for 62% of all studies, ranging from 13% in Turkey to over 75% in Canada and the US. Conclusions: Although this study had several limitations, especially with regard to potential biases in the sample of studies from non-English-speaking countries, this analysis of over 1,000 nursing studies indicates many important inter-country differences in the focus, methods, and authorship patterns of nursing research published in leading journals. Clinical Relevance: Because research "informs" practice, international differences that exist in the focus and methods of nursing research have implications for nursing practice in the respective countries.
    Journal Title
    Journal of Nursing Scholarship
    Volume
    41
    Issue
    1
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01250.x
    Copyright Statement
    © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Self-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this publisher. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the authors for more information.
    Subject
    Nursing not elsewhere classified
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/29995
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Social media

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • YouTube
    • Instagram
    • Linkedin
    First peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane
    • Australia