Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Aug 21;22(4):e70069. doi: 10.1111/wvn.70069

Effectiveness of Evidence‐Based Practice‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program: A Quasi‐Experimental Controlled Study Design

Vesile Koçak 1,✉, Selda Arslan 1, Muradiye Aldem Budak 1
PMCID: PMC12371223  PMID: 40842167

ABSTRACT

Background

The translation of evidence‐based practice (EBP) into routine nursing practice remains a persistent challenge.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of a structured EBP Mentor Nurse Training Program, developed using the Johns Hopkins EBP model as a process guide and conceptually grounded in the ARCC (Advancing Research and Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration) model, which emphasizes the development of EBP mentors to enhance implementation and competency.

Method

This quasi‐experiment used a pretest‐posttest design with equivalent control and intervention groups (n = 52; intervention group = 26, control group = 26). The intervention consisted of a blended training program (16 h face‐to‐face, 3 h online) covering EBP, mentoring, and communication skills. The control group received no intervention. Data were collected using the Nurse Information Form, the Evidence‐Based Practice Evaluation Competency Scale, and the Mentoring Scale. The TREND statement guided reporting.

Results

Post‐test results indicated significant improvements in the intervention group's EBP knowledge sub‐dimension and total competency scores. Statistically significant gains were also observed in the coaching, role modeling, counseling, acceptance and approval, and friendship sub‐dimensions of the Mentoring Scale. Effect sizes ranged from d = 0.5 (coaching) to d = 0.8 (EBP knowledge), indicating moderate to large practical significance.

Linking Evidence to Action

Structured EBP mentorship programs effectively enhance nurses' knowledge, EBP competencies, and mentoring abilities. These outcomes align with the ARCC model, supporting the cultivation of EBP mentors as a sustainable strategy for EBP integration. Incorporating blended learning and active mentorship in nursing education can foster a culture of collaboration, improve clinical decision‐making, and promote better patient outcomes.

Keywords: evidence‐based practice, mentor, nursing, nursing education, quasi‐experiment

1. Introduction

Evidence‐Based Practice (EBP) is an essential component of health care, integrating the best available scientific evidence, clinical expertise, patient preferences, and contextual factors to inform clinical decision‐making and enhance patient outcomes (Melnyk and Fineout‐Overholt 2019). Despite its well‐established efficacy in enhancing care quality and lowering costs (Connor et al. 2023), the translation of EBP into routine nursing practice remains a persistent challenge, particularly in environments where institutional infrastructure and staff capacity for EBP are limited (Leal‐Costa et al. 2024). To address these barriers, structured models, such as the Advancing Research and Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration (ARCC) model and the Johns Hopkins Evidence‐Based Practice (JHNEBP) model have been developed to guide both the cultural transformation of healthcare systems and the stepwise application of EBP in clinical decision making (Melnyk et al. 2004; Speroni et al. 2020).

Mentorship, a central strategy of the ARCC model, supports the application of EBP by strengthening nurses' confidence and competence in evidence‐based care. Its role in professional development and clinical integration is well recognized in nursing education and practice (Kallerhult Hermansson et al. 2024; Keinänen et al. 2023; Kowalski 2019). Building on these frameworks, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a structured EBP Mentor Nurse Training Program designed to enhance nurses' competencies in EBP and mentoring. Guided conceptually by the ARCC model and procedurally by the JHNEBP model, the program was evaluated using a quasi‐experiment to assess its impact on EBP‐related beliefs, skills, and mentoring capacity.

2. Background

The ARCC Model is an evidence‐based system‐wide model for advancing and sustaining EBP in hospitals and healthcare systems (Saunders and Vehviläinen‐Julkunen 2017; Melnyk and Fineout‐Overholt 2023). The ARCC model offers a comprehensive, system‐level framework for implementing and sustaining EBP within healthcare organizations, serving as a strategic roadmap for assessing organizational readiness and developing EBP mentors to work with point‐of‐care nurses and clinicians in implementing EBP (Melnyk and Fineout‐Overholt 2023; Melnyk et al. 2011, 2018). It begins by evaluating the organizational culture for EBP, as well as clinicians' beliefs and current implementation levels, to identify both facilitators and barriers. A central component of the model is the intentional development of a critical mass of EBP mentors (Chays‐Amania et al. 2025; Melnyk and Fineout‐Overholt 2023). These mentors are clinicians with advanced EBP competencies who support point‐of‐care staff in translating evidence into practice and facilitating change at both individual and organizational levels (Melnyk et al. 2021). Research has demonstrated that the presence of EBP mentors and a strong EBP culture are associated with enhanced clinician competency, greater implementation of evidence‐based interventions, improved patient outcomes, and increased staff retention (Melnyk et al. 2010; Stokke et al. 2014; Wallen et al. 2010). Thus, the ARCC Model supports both professional development and institutional quality and sustainability in EBP delivery (Melnyk et al. 2017, 2021).

While the ARCC model provides the conceptual and system‐level foundation for this study, it is complemented by the JHNEBP model, which offers a stepwise framework for the practical implementation of EBP at the individual level. The JHNEBP model consists of three phases that guide clinicians in identifying clinical problems, evaluating evidence, and applying findings in practice, with a focus on stakeholder engagement, sustainability, and outcome evaluation (Bissett et al. 2025; Speroni et al. 2020). In this study, the ARCC model informed the conceptual framework and mentoring strategy, while the JHNEBP model guided the instructional content of the training intervention.

Mentorship has long been recognized as a foundational element of nursing education and professional development. In clinical settings, it plays a critical role in supporting the transition from theoretical knowledge to applied practice, while fostering confidence, communication, and leadership skills (Keinänen et al. 2023; Kowalski 2019). Mentoring is a dynamic and positive relationship that provides emotional support, socialization, and supports professional development (Kallerhult Hermansson et al. 2024). Furthermore, mentoring education facilitates learner‐centered assessment, individualized goal‐setting, and professional growth within a constructive pedagogical environment (Keinänen et al. 2023; Mikkonen et al. 2022). The need for mentoring‐specific training for healthcare professionals has been well documented, particularly in the context of enhancing mentoring capacity, improving educational outcomes, and supporting novice practitioners (Keinänen et al. 2023; Koole et al. 2016). Given this critical need, the present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Evidence‐Based Practice Mentor Nurse Training Program, developed in collaboration with academic experts and informed by the ARCC Model as the conceptual framework and the JHNEBP model as the process guide.

2.1. Study Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an EBP‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program, developed conceptually based on the ARCC model and procedurally guided by the Johns Hopkins EBP model, in improving nurses' evidence‐based practice competencies and mentoring skills.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design

The study employed a quasi‐experimental pretest‐posttest design with a control group comprising similar participants. It adhered to the TREND (i.e., Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) reporting guidelines for nonrandomized or quasi‐experimental study designs (Supporting Information).

3.2. Sample Size and Participants

The training, limited to 30 participants within the scope of a project, was announced via the institution's website. Volunteer nurses who expressed interest in participating in the “Mentor Nurse” training constituted the intervention group (n = 26) (Figure 1). Due to the nature of this educational intervention study, randomization was not feasible for group allocation. Following the completion of registrations for the intervention group, an equal number of nurses were assigned to the control group. For the control group, nurses were randomly selected from the same institutions as those of the intervention group, ensuring comparability in terms of gender and educational level (n = 26). A total of 52 nurses participated in the study. Inclusion criteria encompassed holding at least a bachelor's degree in nursing, preferably a master's degree, and possessing a minimum of one year of professional experience. Exclusion criteria included non‐attendance at the training sessions and the presence of communication barriers, such as inability to speak Turkish, visual or auditory impairments, or diagnosed mental health or psychological conditions.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

TREND flow diagram.

3.3. Data Collection

Data were collected online by the researchers from nurses who consented to participate in the study. Pre‐tests were administered to both the intervention and control groups prior to the commencement of the training program, and post‐tests were conducted following the completion of the training.

3.4. Intervention Group

The study was conceptually grounded in the ARCC Model, which emphasizes building a critical mass of EBP mentors to improve EBP adoption across healthcare systems. In parallel, the JHNEBP model served as the process model guiding the practical implementation of EBP within the training curriculum (Figure 2). The JHNEBP model follows a structured three‐step approach: practice question, evidence, and translation to assist clinicians in identifying clinical issues, appraising evidence, and integrating findings into practice through feasible action plans and outcome evaluation.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

The Evidence‐Based Practice‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program, developed according to the Johns Hopkins EBP model.

Building on these models, the Evidence‐Based Practice‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program was designed to enhance nurses' competencies in both EBP and mentoring. The program consisted of three sessions. The first session was delivered in‐person over two consecutive days, totaling 16 h, and included both theoretical instruction and practical activities focused on mentoring skills. A team of 12 academic experts in fields such as evidence‐based care, leadership, education, communication, and conflict resolution facilitated the training using diverse teaching methods such as lectures, group work, demonstrations, and interactive discussions. A blended learning format was adopted, integrating face‐to‐face and online sessions to enhance accessibility and engagement. Two months after the initial training, two follow‐up sessions were conducted online, each lasting approximately 90 min, to reinforce learning and maintain participant engagement.

3.5. Training Content of the Evidence‐Based Practice‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program

The training program, developed in alignment with the JHNEBP model, was delivered in three sessions; combining both face‐to‐face and online formats.

3.5.1. Session 1

This session focused on foundational mentoring and professional competencies. Topics included:

  • Introduction to mentor nursing: roles, responsibilities, and essential characteristics of mentors.

  • Creating a supportive and healing learning environment.

  • Active learning strategies applicable in clinical settings.

  • Clinical assessment and evaluation methods.

  • Principles of measurement and evaluation.

  • Effective communication skills and conflict management.

  • Teamwork and collaboration.

  • Legal and ethical issues in clinical nursing practice.

  • Research literacy and evidence‐based practice in nursing.

  • Application of the nursing process.

  • Contemporary approaches and innovations in nursing care.

3.5.2. Session 2

This session aimed to enhance nurses' cognitive and clinical decision‐making abilities, focusing on:

  • Critical thinking and critical decision‐making in clinical settings.

3.5.3. Session 3

The final session concentrated on strengthening evidence‐based practice skills:

  • Evidence‐based practice definition and process.

  • Selecting and using databases to access evidence‐based nursing information.

  • Examples of evidence‐based nursing practice.

3.6. Control Group

No intervention was implemented for the nurses in the control group. As the training is scheduled to recur annually, nurses in the control group will have the opportunity to participate in future sessions. An announcement will be made to inform them once preparations for the upcoming training are finalized.

3.7. Hypotheses

There will be a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the post‐intervention mean scores on the Evidence‐Based Practice Evaluation Competency.

There will be a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the post‐intervention mean scores on the Mentoring Scale.

3.8. Data Collection Tools

Data collection tools used were the Nurse Information Form, Evidence‐Based Practice Evaluation Competence Questionnaire, and Mentoring Scale.

3.8.1. Nurse Information Form

This form consists of a total of 5 questions regarding the age, gender, working years, educational status, and marital status of nurses.

3.8.2. Evidence‐Based Practice Evaluation Competence Questionnaire (EBP‐COQ‐T)

The scale was developed by Ruzafa‐Martinez et al. (2013). The Turkish validity and reliability of the scale were conducted by Yildiz and Güngörmüş (2016). The scale consists of 3 sub‐dimensions (Factor 1: Knowledge; Factor 2: Skill; Factor 3: Attitude) and 25 items. It is a 5‐point Likert‐type scale. The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 25, and the highest score is 125. Negative items are reverse scored. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.826.

3.8.3. Mentoring Scale

The Turkish validity‐reliability study of the scale developed by Noe (1988) was conducted by Özkalp et al. (2006). The scale consists of 6 sub‐dimensions and 30 items. It is a 5‐point Likert‐type scale. The scale includes the sub‐dimensions of Coaching, Role Modeling, Self‐Expression and Visibility, Consultancy, Acceptance and Approval, and Friendship. The lowest score is 30, and the highest is 150. The Cronbach's alpha value of the scale is 0.96.

3.9. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Standard Concurrent User V26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range) were computed for numerical variables. The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For intergroup comparisons, the Mann–Whitney U test, independent t‐test, Pearson chi‐square test, and Yates' corrected chi‐square test were employed. A p‐value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Additionally, effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to assess the magnitude of differences between groups.

3.10. Ethical Consideration

Ethics committee approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Health Sciences Scientific Research Ethics Committee with approval number: 2023/586 to conduct the study. Informed consent was obtained from nurses who volunteered to participate in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were verbally informed about the study, and their informed consent was obtained. They were made aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time without providing a reason and that their participation would incur no costs. The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

4. Results

A comparison of the descriptive characteristics of participants in the intervention and control groups is presented in Table 1. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups concerning these characteristics (p > 0.05) (Table 1). In the pre‐test measurements, a significant difference was observed between the intervention and control groups in the attitude sub‐dimension of the Evidence‐based Practice Evaluation Competence Questionnaire (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the other sub‐dimensions or the total score (p > 0.05). Post‐test measurements indicated a significant increase in the knowledge sub‐dimension and the total score of the Evidence‐based Practice Evaluation Competence Questionnaire in the intervention group (p < 0.05), as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, effect size analyses revealed that the intervention had a very large impact on the knowledge sub‐dimension (Cohen's d = 1.211) and a large effect on the total score (Cohen's d = −0.884) in the post‐test. These findings suggest that the intervention was particularly effective in enhancing participants' knowledge and overall competence in evidence‐based practice. Consequently, the Ha hypothesis was accepted. Regarding the Mentoring Scale, pre‐test measurements revealed a significant difference between the groups in the self‐expression sub‐dimension (p < 0.05), with no significant differences in the other sub‐dimensions or the total score (p > 0.05) (Table 3). In the post‐test measurements, significant differences emerged between the groups in the coaching (p = 0.045, Cohen's d = 0.626), role modeling (p = 0.028, Cohen's d = 0.815), consultancy (p = 0.025, Cohen's d = 0.686), acceptance and approval (p = 0.015, Cohen's d = 0.901), and friendship (p = 0.038, Cohen's d = 0.689) sub‐dimensions, as well as in the total score (p = 0.007, Cohen's d = 0.818). These effect sizes range from medium to large, indicating substantial improvements in the intervention group across multiple mentoring functions. Therefore, the Hb hypothesis was accepted.

TABLE 1.

Demographic and baseline characteristics of the study participants (n = 52).

Intervention group (n = 26) Control group (n = 26) Statistics p
Characters of participants
Participants age, mean (SD) 31.08 (5.24) 32.96 (8.67) 0.949 a 0.347
Participants gender, n (%)
Male 9 (34.6) 3 (11.5) 2.708 b 0,100
Female 17 (65.4) 23 (88.5)
Education status, n (%)
University 8 (30.8) 8 (30.8) 0.000 c 1.000
Master 15 (57.7) 15 (57.7)
PhD 3 (11.5) 3 (11.5)
Marital status, n (%)
Married 14 (53.8) 15 (57.7) 0.000 b 1.000
Single 12 (46.2) 11 (42.3)
Working age, mean (SD) 6.96 (4.75) 9.98 (8.34) 1.604 a 0.117
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

a

Student's t‐test.

b

Chi‐square test with Yates correction.

c

X 2 test.

TABLE 2.

Comparison of evidence‐based practice evaluation competence questionnaire scores between the intervention and control groups (n = 44).

Intervention group (n = 20) Control group (n = 24) Statistics p Cohen d
Attitude, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 47.50 (26.25) 58.50 (10.75) ‐2.113 a 0.035 −0.888
Post‐test 60.50 (8.25) 58 (11.75) 1.586 a 0.113 0.623
Skill, mean (SD)
Pre‐test 21.55 (5.31) 23,04 (3.97) 1.066 b 0.293 −0.322
Post‐test 24.45 (3.80) 22.58 (3.60) −1.670 b 0.102 −0.507
Knowledge, mean (SD)
Pre‐test 19.40 (5.34) 19.50 (4.83) 0.065 b 0.948 −0.020
Post‐test 24.50 (4.39) 19.63 (3.69) −4.000 b 0.000 1.211
Total, mean (SD)
Pre‐test 89.10 (21.18) 99.21 (12.19) 1.890 b 0.069 −0.590
Post‐test 108.75 (11.22) 97.46 (13.92) −2.921 b 0.006 −0.884
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: Cohen d = effect size; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation.

a

Mann–Whitney U test.

b

Student's t‐test.

TABLE 3.

Comparison of mentoring scale scores between the intervention and control groups (n = 44).

Intervention group (n = 20) Control group (n = 24) Statistics p Cohen d
Coaching, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 19.50 (9.50) 23 (5) −1.750 a 0.080 −0.642
Post‐test 24 (4) 20.50 (5) 2.000 a 0.045 0.626
Role modeling, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 20 (8.25) 20 (6.50) −0.024 a 0.981 −0.036
Post‐test 21 (5) 19.50 (3.75) 2.198 a 0.028 0.815
Self‐expression and visibility, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 18 (10.50) 21 (5) −2.301 a 0.021 −0.819
Post‐test 24.50 (5) 20 (6) 1.761 a 0.078 0.610
Consultancy, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 36 (14.50) 40 (9) −1.908 a 0.056 −0.652
Post‐test 42 (8.50) 36 (7) 2.244 a 0.025 0.686
Acceptance and approval, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 12.50 (4) 13.50 (3) −1.205 a 0.228 −0.495
Post‐test 15 (1) 12.50 (3) 2.443 a 0.015 0.901
Friendship, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 11 (7.75) 12 (5) −1.234 a 0.217 −0.385
Post‐test 12.50 (4.75) 11 (3) 2.072 a 0.038 0.689
Total, median (IQR)
Pre‐test 114 (50.50) 127.50 (31.25) −1.604 a 0.109 −0.594
Post‐test 133 (25.50) 120 (26.50) 2.701 a 0.007 0.818
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: Cohen d, effect size; IQR, interquartile range.

a

Mann–Whitney U test.

5. Discussion

This study is the first in Turkey to evaluate the impact of a structured EBP Mentor Nurse Training Program, developed using the ARCC and JHNEBP models, on the EBP competency and mentoring skills of clinical nurses. The ARCC Model served as the conceptual framework, emphasizing the development of a critical mass of EBP mentors to improve institutional adoption of EBP. The JHNEBP model was used as the process model, providing a structured framework to guide EBP training content.

Following the intervention, a significant increase was observed in the total score of EBP competency (effect size = 0.884) and the EBP knowledge sub‐dimension (effect size = 1.211) in the intervention group. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that targeted EBP training can improve nurses' knowledge and capacity to apply evidence in clinical decision‐making (Elhabashy et al. 2024; Kim and Jeong 2024; Koota et al. 2021; Sapri et al. 2022). The effectiveness of this intervention may be attributed to the structured content, the inclusion of expert academic trainers, and the blended learning format. As noted in the literature, blended educational strategies enhance knowledge transfer through active methods such as group discussions, case studies, and real‐time feedback. These strategies promote peer interaction and address individual learning needs without logistical barriers (Dos Portela Santos et al. 2022; Wu et al. 2020). The educational intervention in our study was delivered via a blended approach, combining face‐to‐face and online learning which promoted active engagement through case studies, group discussions, and real‐time feedback. This outcome aligns with previous findings indicating that multi‐dimensional education programs can effectively enhance clinical nurses' EBP beliefs, skills, and attitudes (Liu et al. 2021). Additionally, the instructors consisted of academics who are experts in their fields, well‐versed in teaching techniques, and who provide up‐to‐date information with active teaching methods throughout the training. In order to ensure EBP competence among nurses, it is important to provide continuous teaching support blended with effective educational strategies by expert trainers in the field.

However, no statistically significant improvement was found in the skills and attitudes sub‐dimensions. This finding is consistent with prior studies reporting that, although knowledge may increase following an intervention, changes in attitudes are often not observed in the short term. In many cases, attitude shifts require a longer duration and tend to emerge gradually over time (Koota et al. 2021; Leal‐Costa et al. 2024; Mudderman et al. 2020; Vaajoki et al. 2023). Attitude refers to an individual's way of thinking and feeling about something, which often manifests in behavior (Oxford dictionary). Attitude consists of three components: emotion, thought, and behavior (Rosenberg et al. 1960). Individuals' emotions and thoughts (cognitions) affect their behavior. Here too, there seems to be a mutual interaction. While a positive attitude supports the learning and skill development process, a negative attitude hinders this process (Bandura 1977). In this context, attitude change requires more time, repetition, and reinforcement. Previous experiences, institutional culture, and motivational factors also play a role (Tomotaki et al. 2020). Therefore, future EBP training programs should consider long‐term and longitudinal approaches to reinforce skills and foster meaningful attitude change.

Importantly, the study demonstrated that the training program significantly improved mentoring skills in the intervention group. Improvements were noted across multiple mentoring sub‐dimensions, including coaching, role modeling, counseling, acceptance and approval, and friendship. These findings are consistent with earlier research indicating that mentorship‐focused interventions contribute to nurses' professional growth, facilitate the dissemination of EBP, and promote cultural change within clinical settings (Chan et al. 2020; Mudderman et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2016). These outcomes strongly support the ARCC Model's emphasis on building EBP mentorship capacity as a driver of implementation success and institutional transformation. Mentorship not only supports nurses in adopting EBP practices but also enables them to act as role models and trainers for others, thus creating a multiplier effect within the healthcare workforce.

Mentoring is increasingly recognized as a critical competency in both clinical and educational nursing domains. As highlighted in prior literature, mentoring enhances professional identity, commitment, and clinical reasoning (Mikkonen et al. 2020). In the study, it is seen that the educational intervention was effective in the mentoring characteristics of nurses. Mentoring training interventions are a crucial phenomenon in both theoretical and clinical aspects of developing nurses' mentoring skills (Keinänen et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2024). The educational intervention presented in the study was found to increase the mentoring skills of nurses; attention is drawn to the integration of educational topics that address and develop mentoring skills into EBP educational interventions.

5.1. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the intervention was implemented for the first time within a limited time frame and budget, which may have influenced the program's overall impact. Second, the training was delivered to a relatively small group of nurses (maximum 30 participants), as required by the funding constraints. Small sample sizes may lead to overestimated effect sizes and reduced statistical power, which can limit the generalizability of the findings. Third, although the blended learning approach was effective, the short follow‐up duration may not have been sufficient to capture meaningful changes in attitudes and skills. Future studies should consider larger sample sizes, longer‐term evaluations, and multicenter implementation to strengthen the evidence base for EBP mentorship programs.

5.2. Linking Evidence to Action

  • Structured EBP mentorship programs effectively enhance nurses' knowledge, EBP competencies, and mentoring abilities.

  • These outcomes align with the ARCC model, supporting the cultivation of EBP mentors as a sustainable strategy for EBP integration.

  • Incorporating blended learning and active mentorship in nursing education can foster a culture of collaboration, improve clinical decision‐making, and promote better patient outcomes.

6. Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the EBP Mentor Nurse Training Program, conceptually grounded in the ARCC Model and guided procedurally by the JHNEBP model, significantly improved nurses' EBP knowledge and mentoring competencies. These findings support the ARCC Model's emphasis on building a critical mass of EBP mentors to promote evidence‐based care and foster cultural change within healthcare organizations. However, limited improvements were observed in EBP attitudes and skills, suggesting the need for long‐term strategies and reinforcement. Future EBP training programs should adopt engaging, sustainable, and learner‐centered approaches that cultivate both knowledge and attitudinal transformation to support the full integration of EBP in clinical settings.

Ethics Statement

The name of the ethics committee: Ethics Committee of Necmettin Erbakan University, Faculty of Health Sciences Scientific Research Ethics Committee. The approval number: 2023/586. The date of approval: 01.11.2023.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1: wvn70069‐sup‐0001‐Supinfo.pdf.

WVN-22-0-s001.pdf (2MB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the trainers who contributed to the execution of this study and to the nurses who participated. Additionally, we acknowledge that this research was supported by the TÜBİTAK 2237‐A Grant Program for Scientific Training (Application No: 1129B372300360).

Koçak, V. , Arslan S., and Aldem Budak M.. 2025. “Effectiveness of Evidence‐Based Practice‐Based Mentor Nurse Training Program: A Quasi‐Experimental Controlled Study Design.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 22, no. 4: e70069. 10.1111/wvn.70069.

Funding: This work was supported by the TÜBİTAK 2237‐A Grant Program for Scientific Training (Application No: 1129B372300360).

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Bandura, A. 1977. “Social Learning Theory.” In Social Learning Theory. Prentice‐Hall. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bissett, K. , Ascenzi J., and Whalen M.. 2025. Johns Hopkins Evidence‐Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals. 5th ed. Sigma Theta Tau International. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chan, E.‐Y. , Glass G. F., and Phang K. N.. 2020. “Evaluation of a Hospital‐Based Nursing Research and Evidence‐Based Practice Mentorship Program on Improving Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Evidence‐Based Practice.” Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 51, no. 1: 46–52. 10.3928/00220124-20191217-09. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chays‐Amania, A. , Schwingrouber J., Melnyk B. M., Haller P. H., Soler J., and Colson S.. 2025. “Mapping Implementation Strategies and Outcomes When Using Evidence Based Practice Implementation Models in Nursing Settings: A Scoping Review.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 22, no. 3: e70050. 10.1111/wvn.70050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Connor, L. , Dean J., McNett M., et al. 2023. “Evidence‐Based Practice Improves Patient Outcomes and Healthcare System Return on Investment: Findings from a Scoping Review.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 20, no. 1: 6–15. 10.1111/wvn.12621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dos Portela Santos, O. , Melly P., Hilfiker R., et al. 2022. “Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Skills in Evidence‐Based Practice Among Nurses: The EDITcare Systematic Review.” Healthcare (Basel) 10, no. 11: 2204. 10.3390/healthcare10112204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Elhabashy, S. , Moriyama M., Mahmoud E. I. E.‐D., and Eysa B.. 2024. “Effect of Evidence‐Based Nursing Practices Training Programme on the Competency of Nurses Caring for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMC Nursing 23, no. 1: 225. 10.1186/s12912-024-01869-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kallerhult Hermansson, S. , Kasén A., Hilli Y., Norström F., Vaag J. R., and Bölenius K.. 2024. “Exploring Registered Nurses' Perspectives as Mentors for Newly Qualified Nurses: A Qualitative Interview Study.” BMJ Open 14, no. 5: e082940. 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Keinänen, A.‐L. , Lähdesmäki R., Juntunen J., Tuomikoski A.‐M., Kääriäinen M., and Mikkonen K.. 2023. “Effectiveness of Mentoring Education on Health Care Professionals' Mentoring Competence: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 121: 105709. 10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kim, S. , and Jeong H. W.. 2024. “Developing and Evaluating an Evidence‐Based Practice Research Competency Enhancement Program for Clinical Nurses in Korea: A Pilot Study.” BMC Nursing 23, no. 1: 111. 10.1186/s12912-024-01749-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Koole, S. , Christiaens V., Cosyn J., and De Bruyn H.. 2016. “Facilitating Dental Student Reflections: Using Mentor Groups to Discuss Clinical Experiences and Personal Development.” Journal of Dental Education 80, no. 10: 1212–1218. 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2016.80.10.tb06204.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Koota, E. , Kääriäinen M., Kyngäs H., Lääperi M., and Melender H.. 2021. “Effectiveness of Evidence‐Based Practice (EBP) Education on Emergency Nurses' EBP Attitudes, Knowledge, Self‐Efficacy, Skills, and Behavior: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 18, no. 1: 23–32. 10.1111/wvn.12485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kowalski, K. 2019. “Mentoring.” Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing 50, no. 12: 540–541. 10.3928/00220124-20191115-04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Leal‐Costa, C. , Carrasco‐Guirao J. J., Adánez‐Martínez M. G., et al. 2024. “Does Clinical Simulation Learning Enhance Evidence‐Based Practice? A Quasi‐Experimental Study Involving Nursing Students.” Clinical Simulation in Nursing 87: 101494. 10.1016/j.ecns.2023.101494. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, M. , Lin Y., Dai Y., et al. 2021. “A Multi‐Dimensional EBP Educational Program to Improve Evidence‐Based Practice and Critical Thinking of Hospital‐Based Nurses: Development, Implementation, and Preliminary Outcomes.” Nurse Education in Practice 52: 102964. 10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Melnyk, B. M. , and Fineout‐Overholt E.. 2019. Evidence‐Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  17. Melnyk, B. M. , and Fineout‐Overholt E.. 2023. Evidence‐Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. 5th ed. Wolters Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  18. Melnyk, B. M. , Fineout‐Overholt E., Fischbeck Feinstein N., et al. 2004. “Nurses' Perceived Knowledge, Beliefs, Skills, and Needs Regarding Evidence‐Based Practice: Implications for Accelerating the Paradigm Shift.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 1, no. 3: 185–193. 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2004.04024.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Melnyk, B. M. , Fineout‐Overholt E., Gallagher‐Ford L., and Stillwell S. B.. 2011. “Evidence‐Based Practice, Step by Step: Sustaining Evidence‐Based Practice Through Organizational Policies and an Innovative Model.” American Journal of Nursing 111, no. 9: 57–60. 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000405063.97774.0e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Melnyk, B. M. , Fineout‐Overholt E., Giggleman M., and Choy K.. 2017. “A Test of the ARCC Model Improves Implementation of Evidence‐Based Practice, Healthcare Culture, and Patient Outcomes.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 14, no. 1: 5–9. 10.1111/wvn.12188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Melnyk, B. M. , Fineout‐Overholt E., Giggleman M., and Cruz R.. 2010. “Correlates Among Cognitive Beliefs, EBP Implementation, Organizational Culture, Cohesion and Job Satisfaction in Evidence‐Based Practice Mentors From a Community Hospital System.” Nursing Outlook 58, no. 6: 301–308. 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Melnyk, B. M. , Gallagher‐Ford L., Zellefrow C., et al. 2018. “The First U.S. Study on Nurses' Evidence‐Based Practice Competencies Indicates Major Deficits That Threaten Healthcare Quality, Safety, and Patient Outcomes.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 15, no. 1: 16–25. 10.1111/wvn.12269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Melnyk, B. M. , Tan A., Hsieh A. P., and Gallagher‐Ford L.. 2021. “Evidence‐Based Practice Culture and Mentorship Predict EBP Implementation, Nurse Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Stay: Support for the ARCC Model.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 18, no. 4: 272–281. 10.1111/wvn.12524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mikkonen, K. , Tomietto M., Cicolini G., et al. 2020. “Development and Testing of an Evidence‐Based Model of Mentoring Nursing Students in Clinical Practice.” Nurse Education Today 85: 104272. 10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mikkonen, K. , Tomietto M., Tuomikoski A., et al. 2022. “Mentors' Competence in Mentoring Nursing Students in Clinical Practice: Detecting Profiles to Enhance Mentoring Practices.” Nursing Open 9, no. 1: 593–603. 10.1002/nop2.1103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mudderman, J. , Nelson‐Brantley H. V., Wilson‐Sands C. L., Brahn P., and Graves K. L.. 2020. “The Effect of an Evidence‐Based Practice Education and Mentoring Program on Increasing Knowledge, Practice, and Attitudes Toward Evidence‐Based Practice in a Rural Critical Access Hospital.” Journal of Nursing Administration 50, no. 5: 281–286. 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Noe, A. R. 1988. “An Investigation of the Determinants of Successful Assigned Mentoring Relationships.” Personnel Psychology 41: 457–479. [Google Scholar]
  28. Özkalp, E. , Kırel Ç., Sungur Z., and Cengiz A. A.. 2006. “The Place and Importance of the Mentorship and the Mentor in the Process of Organizational Socialization: A Study on Research Assistants at Anadolu University.” Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences 6, no. 2: 55–69. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosenberg, M. J. , Hovland C. I., McGuire W. J., Abelson R. P., and Brehm J. W.. 1960. Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components. (Yales Studies in Attitude and Communication). Vol. III. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruzafa‐Martinez, M. , Lopez‐Iborra L., Moreno‐Casbas T., and Madrigal‐Torres M.. 2013. “Development and Validation of the Competence in Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire (EBP‐COQ) Among Nursing Students.” BMC Medical Education 13, no. 1: 19. 10.1186/1472-6920-13-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sapri, N. D. , Ng Y. T., Wu V. X., and Klainin‐Yobas P.. 2022. “Effectiveness of Educational Interventions on Evidence‐Based Practice for Nurses in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Nurse Education Today 111: 105295. 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Saunders, H. , and Vehviläinen‐Julkunen K.. 2017. “Nurses' Evidence‐Based Practice Beliefs and the Role of Evidence‐Based Practice Mentors at University Hospitals in Finland.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 14, no. 1: 35–45. 10.1111/wvn.12189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Speroni, K. G. , McLaughlin M. K., and Friesen M. A.. 2020. “Use of Evidence‐Based Practice Models and Research Findings in Magnet‐Designated Hospitals Across the United States: National Survey Results.” Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 17, no. 2: 98–107. 10.1111/wvn.12428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stokke, K. , Olsen N. R., Espehaug B., and Nortvedt M. W.. 2014. “Evidence Based Practice Beliefs and Implementation Among Nurses: A Cross‐Sectional Study.” BMC Nursing 13, no. 1: 8. 10.1186/1472-6955-13-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomotaki, A. , Fukahori H., and Sakai I.. 2020. “Exploring Sociodemographic Factors Related to Practice, Attitude, Knowledge, and Skills Concerning Evidence‐Based Practice in Clinical Nursing.” Japan Journal of Nursing Science 17, no. 1: e12260. 10.1111/jjns.12260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Vaajoki, A. , Kvist T., Kulmala M., and Tervo‐Heikkinen T.. 2023. “Systematic Education Has a Positive Impact on Nurses' Evidence‐Based Practice: Intervention Study Results.” Nurse Education Today 120: 105597. 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wallen, G. R. , Mitchell S. A., Melnyk B., et al. 2010. “Implementing Evidence‐Based Practice: Effectiveness of a Structured Multifaceted Mentorship Programme.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 66, no. 12: 2761–2771. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05442.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wang, Y. , Hu S., Yao J., Pan Y., Wang J., and Wang H.. 2024. “Clinical Nursing Mentors' Motivation, Attitude, and Practice for Mentoring and Factors Associated With Them.” BMC Nursing 23, no. 1: 76. 10.1186/s12912-024-01757-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wu, X. V. , Chi Y., Panneer Selvam U., et al. 2020. “A Clinical Teaching Blended Learning Program to Enhance Registered Nurse Preceptors' Teaching Competencies: Pretest and Posttest Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, no. 4: e18604. 10.2196/18604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Yildiz, E. , and Güngörmüş Z.. 2016. “The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Evidence Based Practice Evaluation Competence Questionnaire.” Nurse Education Today 45: 91–95. 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.05.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang, Y. , Qian Y., Wu J., Wen F., and Zhang Y.. 2016. “The Effectiveness and Implementation of Mentoring Program for Newly Graduated Nurses: A Systematic Review.” Nurse Education Today 37: 136–144. 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1: wvn70069‐sup‐0001‐Supinfo.pdf.

WVN-22-0-s001.pdf (2MB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES