Search

Objectives: To (a) assess the statistical power of nursing research to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes; (b) estimate the experiment-wise Type I error rate in these studies; and (c) assess the extent to which (i) a priori power analyses, (ii) effect sizes (and interpretations thereof), and (iii) confidence intervals were reported. Design: Statistical review. Data sources: Papers published in the 2011 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. Review methods: Papers were assessed for statistical power, control of experiment-wise Type I error, reporting of a priori power analyses, reporting and interpretation of effect sizes, and reporting of confidence intervals. The analyses were based on 333 papers, from which 10,337 inferential statistics were identified. Results: The median power to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes was .40 (interquartile range [IQR] = .24-.71), .98 (IQR = .85-1.00), and 1.00 (IQR = 1.00-1.00), respectively. The median experiment-wise Type I error rate was .54 (IQR = .26-.80). A priori power analyses were reported in 28% of papers. Effect sizes were routinely reported for Spearman's rank correlations (100% of papers in which this test was used), Poisson regressions (100%), odds ratios (100%), Kendall's tau correlations (100%), Pearson's correlations (99%), logistic regressions (98%), structural equation modelling/confirmatory factor analyses/path analyses (97%), and linear regressions (83%), but were reported less often for two-proportion z tests (50%), analyses of variance/analyses of covariance/multivariate analyses of variance (18%), t tests (8%), Wilcoxon's tests (8%), Chi-squared tests (8%), and Fisher's exact tests (7%), and not reported for sign tests, Friedman's tests, McNemar's tests, multi-level models, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Effect sizes were infrequently interpreted. Confidence intervals were reported in 28% of papers. Conclusion: The use, reporting, and interpretation of inferential statistics in nursing research need substantial improvement. Most importantly, researchers should abandon the misleading practice of interpreting the results from inferential tests based solely on whether they are statistically significant (or not) and, instead, focus on reporting and interpreting effect sizes, confidence intervals, and significance levels. Nursing researchers also need to conduct and report a priori power analyses, and to address the issue of Type I experiment-wise error inflation in their studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Venous leg ulcer management in the UK varies significantly. Judgements made by nurses contribute to this variability and it is often assumed that specialist nurses make better judgements than non-specialist nurses. This paper compares the judgements of community tissue viability specialist nurses and community generalist nurses; specifically, the ways they use clinical information and their levels of accuracy. Objectives To compare specialist and non-specialist UK community nurses’ clinical information use when managing venous leg ulceration and their levels of accuracy when making diagnoses and judging the need for treatment. Design Judgement analysis. Setting UK community and primary care nursing services. Participants 18 community generalist nurses working in district (home) nursing teams and general practitioner services and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses. Methods Data were collected in 2011 and 2012. 18 community generalist nurses and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses made diagnostic and treatment judgements on 110 clinical scenarios and indicated their confidence in each of their judgements. Scenarios were generated from real patient cases and presented online using text and photographs. An expert panel made judgements, and reached consensus on the same scenarios. These judgements were used as a standard against which to compare the participants. Logistic regression models and correlational statistics were used to generate various indices of judgement “performance”: accuracy, consistency, confidence calibration and information use. Differences between groups of nurses with different levels of characteristics linked to expertise were explored using analysis of variance. Results Specialist nurses had similar cue usage to the generalist nurses but were more accurate when making diagnostic and treatment judgements. Conclusion It is not obvious why the tissue viability specialist nurses were more accurate. One possible reason might be the greater opportunities for ‘deliberate practice’ afforded to specialists. However, restricting aspects of practice only to specialist nurses is likely to hinder the judgement performance of generalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As yet there is no firm evidence about the types of intervention that can reduce emergency room revisits. However, the literature on emergency room revisits suggests patient difficulties with managing their health problems and treatments after discharge may play a role. Objectives: We carried out a randomized trial of an emergency department-based nursing intervention, but results showed no reduction in revisits (primary outcome). This paper describes the secondary outcomes of the trial: patient perceptions of continuity of care, illness perceptions, self-care capacities, psychological symptoms and medication adherence 30 days after emergency room discharge. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Settings: The trial was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary cardiac hospital in Montreal, Canada between November 2007 and March 2010. Participants: The study involved 203 patients, including 108 in the experimental group and 95 in the control group. Methods: The intervention included one nurse patient encounter before discharge and two phone calls in the 10 days after discharge. Participants provided data 30 days post-discharge on secondary outcomes potentially related to emergency department revisits. Results: Although, as previously reported, the intervention had no impact on the primary outcome of emergency department revisits, the present study demonstrated a significant positive effect on patients’ perceived continuity of care (p = .033), self-care capacities (p = .037), anxiety (p = .007) and depressive symptoms (p = .043), and the illness perceptions treatment control subscale (p = .037). No differences were found for other illness perception subscales or medication adherence (all p’s > .05). Conclusion: Although the intervention did not influence emergency department revisits it did improve secondary outcomes, suggesting pathways for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: As cardiovascular diseases have become the leading cause of death in many countries including China, nurses are increasingly required to be abreast of technological advances and the skills necessary to manage this increasing health care problem. Chinese nurses are under pressure to provide skilled electrocardiography monitoring, and be sufficiently skilled to detect myocardial ischemia and infarction, in this large patient population. This presents a challenge for the nursing profession in China, particularly for nurses working in coronary care in a country where advancement has been so rapid, yet little research has been conducted or reported in the literature. Objectives: The two main objectives were: to explore the demographic and educational factors that affect the use of ST-segment monitoring and correct electrode placement by CCU/ICU nurses in China; and to explore the factors both individual and institutional that affect monitoring and lead placement. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to nurses in 126 randomly selected tertiary hospitals, which were stratified into three homogeneous regions across China. The instrument examined demographics, information about hospitals, electrocardiogram devices, current practice patterns and perceptions toward monitoring and lead placement. Data from 734 nurses and 59 nurse managers from 59 hospitals were analyzed using t-tests, ANOVA, Chi-square test and logistic regression. Results: Electrocardiogram monitoring was used to detect myocardial ischemia by 43.7% of respondents, and 35.1% selected leads according to electrocardiogram or angiography findings. Most (70%) agreed that monitoring for acute coronary syndrome was important, while 39.2% did so, and 15.7% were able to identify correct placement. Logistic regression revealed a significant relationship between the uses of ST-segment monitoring and number of hospital beds, continuing education and a belief in its use and ease of use. Correct electrode placement was significantly correlated with respondents from university hospitals, hospitals with more acute coronary syndrome admissions and more independent thinking nurses. Conclusions: Despite best practice evidence, less than half of the sample used electrocardiogram monitoring to detect myocardial ischemia and the majority could not identify correct electrode placement, while ST-segment monitoring was not used routinely. This paper highlights the need for improvements in education both in universities and hospitals and discussion addresses conventions in units, which inhibit development of nurses’ skills. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]