This paper examines the distinctions between evidence-based practice (EBP) and research utilization in nursing. Drawing on foundational definitions by Sackett et al. (1996), it explores how EBP integrates clinical expertise with current research evidence, and how critics argue it risks reducing clinical judgment to algorithmic "cookbook" medicine. Research utilization is presented as a complementary but more flexible approach, allowing nurses to dynamically adapt the latest research to individual patient circumstances. The paper illustrates these concepts through examples such as coronary heart disease risk assessment and the evolving understanding of Type II Diabetes in pediatric populations, ultimately suggesting that research utilization may offer greater practical adaptability in clinical settings.
The development of evidence-based practice in nursing was an attempt to make nursing theory more practical and applicable to the day-to-day life of a healthcare provider. It is defined as "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients" in a clinical setting (Sackett et al. 1996). It strives to merge the nurse's past experience with present, trained skills in observation, and "the best available external clinical evidence" from current systematic research (Sackett et al. 1996). Evidence-based nursing's definition of medical expertise is quite specific: "the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences" when making decisions, in the context of current research (Sackett et al. 1996).
It attempts to use the best available external clinical evidence, "especially from patient-centered clinical research," and stresses "therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens" validated in medical literature (Sackett et al. 1996). However, evidence-based health care has its critics, particularly clinicians who are concerned that it undervalues the importance of tacit clinical knowledge. Critics argue it encourages "cookbook" medicine through the injection of shortcuts known as "scripts" into the clinical decision-making process (Gabbay & le May 2004).
Research utilization, like the philosophical rubric of evidence-based practice, also strives to be practical — as reflected in its name. It seeks to bring the most contemporary research available from the scientific community into clinical settings. It emphasizes the need for clinicians to keep abreast of new research developments, given that a clinician's instinctual and compassionate responses, observations, and past experiences can be insufficiently informed by current research. Research utilization was formed in acknowledgement that what a nurse may consider the gold standard of quality care can become outdated quite quickly in the ever-changing field of medicine.
For example, recent data has emerged in the popular press regarding the possible concealment of data by drug companies concerning the effectiveness and side effects of antidepressants, the safety of newly developed pain medications, and even apparently evidence-based questions such as risks for coronary heart disease.
A 2002 study noted that clinicians' ability to effectively diagnose coronary conditions could vary considerably. "Routine calculation of the risk of coronary heart disease in primary care is hampered by poor availability of data on risk factors. General practitioners and practice nurses are able to evaluate the risk of coronary heart disease with only moderate accuracy. Data about risk factors need to be collected systematically, to allow the use of the most appropriate calculation tools" (McManus 2002). Ideally, research utilization offers greater flexibility than evidence-based practice, allowing nurses to vary standard operating procedures in dynamic response to known research as clinical demands change.
"Changing disease demographics reshape clinical recognition"
"Diabetes case illustrates flexible research-guided treatment"
Ultimately, the idea of research utilization may be, because of its flexibility, more useful for nurses when engaged in clinical practice.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.