In general, qualitative research makes use of inductive approaches to knowledge generation. Thus, it manages to generate novel insights into hardly quantifiable phenomena, such as holistic descriptions of nurse-patient interactions in particular settings or the experiences of interdisciplinary collaboration within the frame of care provision tasks (Yale University, 2015). Hypothesis generation and opportunities for iterative interpretation of the collected data present the points of critical importance when it comes to qualitative studies’ applicability to EBP in patient care, including processes in adult and geriatric mental health settings.
Current descriptive studies peculiar to inpatient mental health environments shed light on the promise of qualitative projects for promoting the proactive implementation of EBP in nursing through the exploration of student- and practitioner-level barriers to EBP. As an example, Charania et al. (2019) apply the interview and content analysis methods to provide an insight into the quality of the Psychiatric-Mental Health Clinical Course in terms of promoting EBP use in the post-graduation period and assess its impacts on practitioner-perceived roles of evidence in clinical practice. Being complicated in nature, the results entail a variety of practically relevant conclusions, including the potential effects of EBP-based reflection activities on the acquisition of self-awareness skills and knowledge about the representations of mental illness stigma in psychiatric nurses (Charania et al., 2019). In a similar manner, projects that use interview techniques offer an initial insight into nurse-perceived subjective contributors to medication errors in psychiatric settings, for instance, understaffing, miscommunication, and insufficient hospital noise control practices (Keers et al., 2018). Therefore, qualitative projects generate initial evidence regarding barriers to EBP, which can promote further research endeavors.
Quantitative studies’ applicability to EBP in nursing practice is far more evident and exemplifiable and may find reflection in duty distribution decisions in psychiatric settings that would optimize the workload on mental health professionals without taking from patient safety. For instance, using the cluster randomized controlled trial methodology, which is a distinct type of RCTs, Van der Zalm et al. (2020) demonstrate that advanced nurse practitioners can conduct clozapine monitoring activities as effectively as qualified psychiatrists. The findings are potentially helpful for the reconsideration of these professionals’ roles in the treatment of chronic psychosis, and their quantitative nature and the use of randomization and blinding procedures strengthen their credibility and practice-oriented promise by ensuring transferability and replicability (Van der Zalm et al., 2020). Thus, quantitative research, including RCTs that measure the effects of changes to psychiatric nurses’ scope of responsibilities, supports EBP in mental health settings by offering novel empirically-tested approaches to the distribution of labor-intensive treatment monitoring activities.
Order this paper