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: Knowledge translation is attracting different professional, educational and institutional strategies mainly focused on how new knowledge should be tailored and transferred at bedside. Less attention is dedicated to the antecedent of knowledge translation, which is the availability of the knowledge itself. Knowledge diffusion is a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels among members of a social system over time. Publishing in peer review journals is recognised as the main method for knowledge diffusion: nevertheless publication efficiency has received little attention to date. Objectives: Describing publication efficiency via nursing journals as the time occurring between data collection and manuscript publication was the main aim of the study. The secondary aim was to discover the differences, if any, in publication efficiency within manuscripts reporting results from different study designs. Design: A retrospective study design was adopted in 2010. Methods: The 2009 Impact Factor List of Nursing Journals published by the ISI web of Knowledge in 2010 was obtained. The first top ten IF Nursing Journals available as a full text and for which the overall ISI 5-Year Impact Factor was also available, was eligible. The articles published on paper by the selected journals, from 1st January to 31st December 2009, were then included. Commentaries, editorials and book reviews were excluded. For each article included, the following were evaluated: (a) the time occurring between each step of publication, from data collection to article submission, acceptance and publication online and on paper; and (b) the differences in the publication efficiency within articles reporting different study designs. Results: 1152 articles were included. From the end of data collection to manuscript publication online/on paper it takes an average of 981 days [CI95% 929-1032] (2.5-3 years). Meta-analysis and systematic reviews have demonstrated the fastest process, requiring an average 1.3 years and 1.9 years respectively. Case-control, cohort and quasiexperimental studies have required more time to enjoy publication in nursing journals, 4 years, 3.5 years and 3.2 years respectively. Conclusions: The production time of an article from its data collection involves significant processes and skills. However, the time may also be lengthened by factors not related to the processes of research, such as the time available to researchers. The scientific world needs to reflect on publication efficiency because lateness can potentially have a negative impact on patients and on further research. In the future, the same emphasis given to the evaluation of knowledge translation effectiveness should be given also to the complex process of knowledge diffusion, discovering facilitators and barriers. [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]