Answer

         Difference between Research utilization (RU) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)

Research utilization (RU) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) are interrelated concepts which relate to the identification, utilization, and usage or application of the knowledge from research sources to clinical practices. Research utilization is the systematic process of implementing, applying and evaluating research based intervention in practice (Bussières et al., 2016). It refers to the application of evidence gathered to programs, policies, and practice to improve the outcomes. It encompasses several strategies which include collaborative research, stakeholder engagements, and employment of knowledge brokers. In that regard, when results of a study are employed into practical applications that are disparate from the original study, then it is known as research utilization (RU). On the other hand, evidence-based practice is the integration of clinical practice, patient value, and research evidence into the process of decision making in order to achieve positive outcome in healthcare settings. It is the meticulous, unequivocal, and thoughtful use of the current best evidences in making decision about care of individual patients. It is, therefore, a means assimilating discrete clinical proficiency with the unsurpassed available clinical evidence from a systematic research.

Research utilization is associated with evidence based practice (EBP) in the logic that EBP is also a research utilization method which includes several influences and considerations precise to the issue at hand (Saunders & Vehviläinen-Julkunen, 2016). EBP or RU uses the evidence found in research to change the way people practice, teach, or operate in “real life.” While research looks and finds reasons behind certain issues, EBP and RU are putting the found results of the research to work.