[Barriers and motivations of nurses for conducting research in Intensive Care Units and Emergency Medical Service]. / Barreras y motivaciones de los profesionales de enfermería para la utilización de la investigación en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos y en el Servicio de Emergencias Médicas.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of evidence based practice is essential in clinical practice. However, it is still a challenge in critical care patients. AIM: To identify the barriers for conducting research that nursing professionals perceive in intensive care and medical emergency departments, as well as to investigate the areas of interest and motivations to carry out research projects. METHOD: Cross-sectional and multicentre study carried out in 4 intensive care units and in one Medical Emergency Department emergency pre-hospital carein Catalonia on 2014. The instrument used was The Barriers to Research Utilization Scale which had been previously validated into Spanish. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was performed. A statistical significance of P<.05 was assumed. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-two questionnaires were obtained (69.9% response). Of the total, 135 were from critical care, 27 to pre-hospital care, and 10 from both. Just over half (57.3%) had research experience, although 44.4% had related training. The questionnaire dimension considered most relevant was organisational characteristics. The most important barriers were: there is not enough time at work [3.11 (SD 1.21)], physicians do not collaborate in its implementation [2.99 (SD 1.22)], and nurses are isolated with respect to other professionals [2.86 (SD 1.32)]. Significant differences were observed in the barriers according to research experience and work place. The main motivation was to be updated in critical patient care. CONCLUSIONS: The main barriers perceived are related to the organisation. There are differences in the barriers according to research experience and work place.

A randomized trial of the impact of certified mail on response rate to a physician survey, and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

This study's goals were to (a) determine whether sending a survey by certified mail results in a higher response rate from physicians compared to sending by first-class mail and (b) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this method. The study sample was 409 physicians who were nonrespondents to two previous mailings of a medical specialty society survey. Eligible physicians were designated at random to receive a final mailing either by U.S. Postal Service certified mail including a return-receipt postcard or by first-class mail. There was a higher response rate from the certified mail group compared with the first-class mail group (41.3% versus 24.8%; relative risk = 1.66, 95% Confidence interval 1.25, 2.21). A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the cost per respondent was higher using certified mail versus first-class mail in the third mailing ($2.77 versus $2.34). Thus, use of certified mail is effective in increasing survey response but more costly.