The goal of nursing research is to identify science that will lead to improved nursing practices. As a professional discipline, we have an obligation to develop knowledge and to disseminate the research findings so that clinicians may apply them. Nurses know they need a research base to guide their practice, and as a result, we have recently devoted significant attention to evidence-based practice. This focus is evident in publications and workshops and at conferences; however, much of this work is based on low levels of evidence or from group consensus rather than from rigorous evidence.

We must translate the very credible research being published in Cancer Nursing into practice. Current evidence indicates that it takes up to 2 decades for findings to be translated, implemented, and become standard healthcare practice,1 which would mean 2029 for current material to be used in practice. Clinicians must apply the research we are reporting now in Cancer Nursing in less time than 2 decades to create a positive effect on patient care. We cannot wait for our knowledge about pain, fatigue, symptom clusters, depression, nutrition, stomatitis, end of life, and other topics to reach patient care.

How do we accomplish this? We have been asking that question for far too long. Many of our research publications have single-sentence statements near the end of articles in a section entitled "Implications for Practice," where we find phrases such as "this work is important for practice," "through understanding this topic clinicians can improve care," and "nurses must take deliberate steps to improve care." We need more than these statements in the Practice Implication section of articles, if we are to hasten the potential for translation that will benefit patients. These statements provide no translation, direction, or guidance for clinicians. Such generalized statements about implications for practice are not enough to bring about improvement in our clinical practice. More information "dissemination" in publications to increase clinician awareness is not "translation" for practice either, so what can be done?

Researchers need to describe interventions more clearly, not merely as a "psycho educational intervention" or "cognitive behavioral interventions." Descriptions should be clear enough for clinicians to fully understand the content, the processes, and the duration of the intervention. Findings need enough clarity so clinicians can see how, when, and for which group of patients the intervention findings should be useful. These requirements may necessitate several publications, one that describes the research and findings with the usual methodological rigor to clearly establish that evidence does exist for the topic under study and one that describes in detail the intervention with specifics regarding for whom it did and did not work. Details on the intervention and what resources might be needed to implement the new knowledge will be required. It is important that novel interventions detail not only the processes required for their implementation but the costs in time for nurses.

Furthermore, the statistical significance that is necessary for the research must be carefully translated into clinical significance for patient care. The clinical significance allows clinicians to determine the intervention's advantages over existing patient care. Moreover, clinically relevant articles should be written and coauthored with clinicians.

For years, we have been challenging practicing nurses to base their practice on research. Now is the time for researchers to accept the challenges of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap and the emerging emphasis on the translation sciences to assume a more active role in translating research for use at the patient point of care. We must assume a more active role in our research reports to facilitate translation of our findings so clinicians may easily and efficiently adopt them. This move requires more specific reports and recommendations in our scientific publications to begin the transition. Findings should not be embellished or understated but instead clear and concise so that adoption and utilization for practice are possible.2 We have to think of the relevance for the community, the health systems, and patient care settings. We need to consider the external validity reporting as a part of our research publications. We must ask of our research: What will the results mean for clinicians? How can clinicians adopt this information, at what cost, and at what compromise to the flow of patient care? The time to begin this transition is now.

My best to you.

Barbara Given, PhD, RN, FAAN

Editorial Board Member, Cancer Nursing(TM)

References