Search

Objectives: To conduct psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the National Health Service Sustainability Model as an instrument to assess the sustainability of innovation in the Chinese nursing setting. Background: Evidence‐based practice is recognized worldwide as a way to improve the quality of healthcare; however, many evidence‐based practice programmes decline over time and do not sustain the benefits of their improvements. A sustainability assessment tool is used internationally but its use has not been validated in China. Design: A methodological study to test instrument validity and reliability. Methods: The data collection was conducted from 15 June 2022 to 31 August 2022. The internal consistency of the Chinese version of the sustainability model was measured with Cronbach's alpha. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model's structural validity. Results: Four hundred eighty‐three questionnaires were returned, of which 478 were valid. The short time taken to evaluate the Chinese version of the sustainability model demonstrated its efficiency and ability to adapt to a busy clinical environment. The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit model and supported the convergence validity of the sustainability model. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.905 for the total scale, which indicated good internal consistency. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the Chinese version of the sustainability model is a valid, reliable and efficient tool for measuring the sustainability of evidence‐based practices in Chinese nursing settings. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? As evidence‐based care grows in China, there are increasing numbers of programmes for evidence‐based practice.Evidence‐based practice leaders in China are currently focused on the implementation of evidence, with little focus on the maintenance of evidence after implementation.There is a lack of tools to assess the sustainability of evidence‐based practice in China. What this paper adds? This study further validates and refines the National Health Service Sustainability Model (NHS SM) in China's busy, centralized and paternalistic nursing clinical settings.Bridges the gap in sustainability assessment tools in China by introducing an evidence‐based practice sustainability assessment tool and further validating and refining the model in busy, centralized and paternalistic nursing clinical settings. The implications of this paper: Provide support to nursing professionals when selecting tools to assess the sustainability of evidence‐based practice in order to promote programme maintenance, avoid wasted upfront resource investment and achieve long‐term programme benefits.Provide a reference for professionals in other countries to introduce sustainability assessment tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]