Association of Community Health Nursing Educators', 2020 evidence-based project priorities: A national blueprint for unifying research and evidence-based practice priorities.

The Association of Community Health Nursing Educators (ACHNE) Research Committee Subcommittee on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) presents a paper on the state of translation of science into public health nursing education practice. The paper builds from the integrative research review completed by the ACHNE Research Priorities Subcommittee (McElroy et al., Public Health Nursing, 2020) offering updated research priorities and a Research in Action model. Four EBP Project Priorities were established using the Johns Hopkins EBP Model guided by Dang and Dearholt's (Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: Model and guidelines, 2018) 19-step process. The EBP Project Priorities emphasize the need for EBP projects to align ACHNE strategic plans and research priorities. The authors recommend that the Research in Action model guide deliberate unification of both the Research and EBP Project Priorities. Standards and criteria for essential effort unifying collaborative effort between PhD and Doctorate in Nursing Practice scholars, coordination of research efforts, and innovative practice partnerships is provided.

Electronic Fetal Monitoring and Cesarean Birth: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: In many United States hospitals, electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) is used continuously during labor for all patients regardless of risk status. Application of EFM, particularly at labor admission, may trigger a chain of interventions resulting in increased risk for cesarean birth among low-risk women. The goal of this review was to summarize evidence on use of EFM during low-risk labors and identify gaps in research. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of studies published in English since 1996 that addressed the relationship between EFM use and cesarean among low-risk women. We screened 57 full-text articles for appropriateness. Seven articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: The largest study demonstrated an 81 percent increased risk of primary cesarean birth when EFM was used in labor, but did not differentiate between high- and low-risk pregnancies. Four randomized controlled trials examined the association of admission EFM with obstetric outcomes; only one considered cesarean birth as a primary outcome and found a 23 percent increase in operative birth when EFM lasted more than 1 hour. A study examining application of continuous EFM before and after 4 centimeters dilatation found no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the research on this topic suggests an association between the use of EFM and cesarean birth; however, more well-designed studies are needed to examine benefits of EFM versus auscultation, determine if EFM is associated with use of other technologies that could cumulatively increase risk of cesarean birth, and understand provider motivation to use EFM over auscultation.