Trends in publication impact of evidence‐based healthcare terminology (2013–2022)

• Published in: Journal of advanced nursing Vol. 80; no. 9; pp. 3600 - 3615
• Main Authors: Bourgault, Annette M., Davis, Jean W., LaManna, Jacqueline, Conner, Norma E., Turnage, Dawn
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2024
• Subjects: Confusion; evidence‐based healthcare; evidence‐based practice, EBP; Health care; implementation science; publication impact; quality improvement; Quality management; Redundancy; Retirement; scholarship; Synonyms; Terminology; Trends; terminology; quality improvement; evidence-based healthcare; scholarship; evidence-based practice, EBP; publication impact; research; implementation science
• ISSN: 0309-2402; 1365-2648; 1365-2648
• DOI: 10.1111/jan.16128

Aims This article explored the publication impact of evidence‐based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms. Background A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence‐based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence. Design This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence‐based healthcare terms. Methods Evidence‐based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10‐year (2013–2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage. Results A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence‐based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10‐year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms. Conclusion We suggest a follow‐up review in 3–5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence‐based healthcare terminology. Implications for Nursing Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence‐based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications.