Search

Background: Urinary catheters (UCs) with a closed urinary drainage system have been widely used in patients for many years. However, the frequency of replacing and operating these devices may be associated with catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI). Purpose: This study was designed to compare the incidence of CAUTI by replacement time (every 14 or ≥ 15 days) of the urinary drainage system. Methods: This 1-year prospective, nonrandomized controlled study was conducted in a major teaching hospital. The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs Statement checklist was used. All of the patients with UCs were divided into two groups based on each patient's preference with regard to replacement time of the urinary drainage system. Results: Five hundred sixty-two patients were evaluated, and 341 patients with UCs were enrolled as participants in the study. In the per-protocol analysis, 16 patients (22.2%; 9.3 episodes/ 1,000 catheter-days) in the 14-day group and 15 patients (17.9%; relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [0.66, 2.34]) in the ≥ 15-day group (7.7 episodes/1,000 catheter-days; incidence density ratio 1.20, 95%confidence interval [0.60, 2.43]) had CAUTIs. A comparison of cleanliness within urinary bags showed no significant intergroup difference (p > .05). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the incidence of CAUTI between the two groups was also not significantly different (p > .05). Conclusions: No statistically significant difference in the incidence of CAUTI was identified between patients who used the 14-day replacement interval and those who used the ≥ 15-day replacement interval for their urinary drainage system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insulin-naive patients are often reluctant to receive insulin treatment, and even insulin-treated patients frequently have poor rates of adherence to their prescribed insulin injection regimes. Assessing attitudes toward insulin injection may help in the design of interventions that improve the insulin injection behaviors of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The concept of decisional balance has been associated with behavior in many studies and may be useful in assessing the attitude of patients with T2DM toward insulin injection. Decisional balance for insulin injection (DBII) has not been widely assessed in patients with T2DM. Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop an insulin injection (DBII) scale that is valid for insulin-naive and insulin-treated patients and to test the psychometric characteristics of this scale based on the concept of decisional balance. Methods: This cross-sectional study administered an 18-item DBII scale, including pro and con subscales, to 95 insulin-naive and 237 insulin-treated patients in Taiwan. The decisional balance score was calculated as the mean score of the pro subscale minus the mean score of the con subscale. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis; concurrent validity was assessed by examining the association between the score of the DBII scale and the stages of behavioral change and of hemoglobin A1c for, respectively, insulin-naive patients and insulin-treated patients; and reliability was assessed using internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Results: A 13-item DBII scale supported by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis was developed. The stages of behavioral change and hemoglobin A1c levels were found to be significantly associated with the scores of decisional balance of the 13-item DBII scale for both insulin-naive and insulin-treated patients. The Cronbach's α ranged between.78 and.92. Conclusions: The 13-item DBII scale is appropriately short and possesses satisfactory validity and reliability for both insulin-naive and insulin-treated patients with T2DM. Healthcare providers may use this scale as a checklist to guide clinical discussions related to insulin therapy with both insulin-naive and insulin-treated patients with T2DM across time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]