Linking Research and Practice Through Discussion


  • Susan Diemert Moch,

    Corresponding author
    1. Susan Diemert Moch, RN, PhD, Delta Phi, Professor, School of Nursing, Department of Family Health Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, WI.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Diane E. Robie,

    1. Diane E. Robie, RN, BA, BS, Quality Improvement Specialist, Bryan Memorial Hospital, Lincoln, NE.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kathleen C. Bauer,

    1. Kathleen C. Bauer, RN, BSN, Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire, WI. Annette Pederson, RN, BSN, Delta Phi, Luther Hospital, Eau Claire, WI.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Annette Pederson,

    1. Sharon A. Bowe. RN, Hayward Hospital, Hayward, WI. Kathleen McClynn Shadick, RN, MSN, Family Nurse Practitioner, Eau Claire Family Medicine Clinic, Eau Claire, WI. Theauthors acknowledge Michelle Spranger Ward, RN, BS
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sharon Bowe,

    1. Jenny Lorentz, RN, BS; Linda Hetzel, RN, BS, MSN; and Mike Perry, RN, BS, for assistance with the discussions, analysis, or preparation of this manuscript.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kathleen Shadick

    1. Lynn Frank, RN, CNAA, Vice President; and personnel at Luther Hospital, Eau Claire, WI are also acknowledged for support for this project.
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr. Moch, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, School of Nursing, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004.


Purpose: To describe the process and outcomes of a researcher-intiated discussion group with nurses in clinical practice.

Design: Descriptive case study. The study, which began in 1991, included one group of four acute care nurses. Between 1992–1996, three other groups of nurses participated.

Methods: Nurses in practice read and discussed articles from a program of research on brast cancer during a series of group sessions. The semi-structured sessions were tape-recorded.

Results: Participants suggested how to make article content more understable to clinicians; they affirmed findings relevant to practice; and identified ways to integrate research in practice.

Conclusions: Discussion served as a means for the researcher and nurses to connect the research-practice gap through learning the practice perspective and the process and value of research. Discussion groups are recommended to enhance science-based clinical practice.