{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02650429799426934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01002865329512894, 'mean_word_length': 5.62085308056872, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implementing Change Through Education

Whether we like it or not, researchers are becoming increasingly accountable for the utilization of their research, and this is even being requested in subsequent app lications for funding. For example, in a recent critique, a reviewer asked, given the present importance of patient outcomes research, what impact previous concept analysis research had on clinical practice. Despite the direct instructions to professionals to conduct research, publish it, and assure its uptake in clinical settings, knowledge transfer lags. In 2000, Balas and Boren calculated that research utilization, from completion to implementation, took about 17 years (Balas & Boren, 2000, as cited in Green, 2008). That time lag was developed from quantitative research, and we believe in the accuracy of their calculation—for instance, Morse’s quantitative research on patient fall assessment is right on target. Placing the responsibility of utilization on the shoulders of researchers, and using the application of past res earch as a criterion of “worth” during the review, intro duces new responsibilities for researchers and exposes several paradoxes that are worthy of comment. First, researchers’ responsibilities: Researchers are already busy with the core business of conducting research. To complete this new mandate, exactly how should researchers entice clinicians to