Application of a nursing research order-service model based on a “demand–resource” linkage mechanism

Objective To explore the application effects of a nursing research order service model based on the “demand–resource” linkage in clinical nursing research management, and to provide practical reference for improving the scientific research capacity of nursing staff. Methods From May to June 2025, clinical nurses and nursing postgraduate students who participated in the service model were selected as the research subjects. A general information questionnaire, Nursing Research Capacity Self-Assessment Scale, Nursing Research Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, and Organizational Climate for Innovation Scale were used to evaluate participants before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 software. Results A total of 136 research demand orders from clinical nurses were received; after evaluation, 7 were declined and 129 were fulfilled. During the service process, 36 papers and 25 research projects were completed. Among the 126 nurses who submitted research orders, the total score of self-assessed research competence significantly improved after participation (mean difference = −0.611, 95% CI −0.931 to −0.291, p < 0.001). Significant improvements were also observed in several subscales: problem identification (mean difference = −0.079, 95% CI −0.148 to −0.010, p = 0.025), literature review (mean difference = −0.087, 95% CI −0.150 to −0.024, p = 0.007), research design (mean difference = −0.095, 95% CI −0.186 to −0.005, p = 0.039), research practice (mean difference = −0.079, 95% CI −0.145 to −0.014, p = 0.018), and data processing ability (mean difference = −0.175, 95% CI −0.277 to −0.072, p = 0.001). The problem formulation dimension of research self-efficacy also showed a significant increase (mean difference = −0.079, 95% CI −0.145 to −0.014, p = 0.018). Among the 34 postgraduate nursing students who provided research order services, the total score of self-assessed research competence improved significantly after participation (mean difference = −2.091, 95% CI −3.401 to −0.781, p = 0.003). Subscale scores with significant improvements included literature review (mean difference = −0.424, 95% CI −0.756 to −0.092, p = 0.014), research design (mean difference = −0.606, 95% CI −1.122 to −0.090, p = 0.023), research practice (mean difference = −0.424, 95% CI −0.840 to −0.008, p = 0.046), and manuscript writing (mean difference = −0.636, 95% CI −1.104 to −0.169, p = 0.009). Total research self-efficacy scores and the results presentation dimension also improved significantly (mean difference = −0.242, 95% CI −0.420 to −0.064, p = 0.009; results presentation mean difference = −0.121, 95% CI −0.239 to −0.004, p = 0.044). Additionally, the total score of perceived organizational climate for innovation increased among postgraduate students (mean difference = −0.576, 95% CI −0.931 to −0.221, p = 0.002), mainly driven by improvements in resource provision (mean difference = −0.212, 95% CI −0.405 to −0.019, p = 0.033). Conclusion The nursing research order service model, based on the “demand–resource” linkage, appears to enhance clinical nurses’ research capacity and self-efficacy, while showing observed improvements in research abilities, self-efficacy, and perception of the organizational research climate among nursing postgraduate students. This model may be particularly relevant for clinical settings with limited nursing research resources and could help cultivate a supportive research environment, promote the development of nurses’ research capabilities, and contribute to the advancement of the nursing discipline.