Conectar
Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been in existence for more than 30 years and is recognized as the standard to achieve high quality care.
To examine EBP beliefs, competence, implementation self-efficacy, organizational culture and readiness, access to mentors and assess relationships between nurse characteristics and EBP variables in a large healthcare system in six U.S. states.
A cross-sectional descriptive correlational design was used to conduct a web-based anonymous survey of registered nurses in a large multistate healthcare system throughout the western US. Measures included: EBP Competency Self-Assessment Scale, the EBP Mentoring Scale, and the Short forms of the EBP Beliefs Scale, EBP Implementation Scale, the Organizational Culture and Readiness Scale for System-Wide Integration of Evidence-Based Practice.
A total of 1468 nurses completed the survey from 36 hospitals in six U.S. states. Overall, participants rated themselves competent in only one competency (asks clinical questions). EBP beliefs followed by implementation self-efficacy scores were highest. Total scores for EBP implementation showed the strongest positive correlation with EBP competency followed by beliefs and mentorship with culture and readiness, the least strong relationship. EBP competency, beliefs, and implementation increased with educational attainment. EBP mentorship scores were low across the system.
The study continues to demonstrate nurses' low perceptions of their EBP competency. Compared to previous studies, nurses in this sample reported their EBP competency higher; however, they still rated themselves above competence in only one statement. This underscores an urgent need for comprehensive education and robust support mechanisms. It is imperative that healthcare organizations establish access to experienced mentors and cultivate organizational structures to empower nurses to master EBP, thereby enhancing patient outcomes and advancing overall quality of care.
To describe a sample of healthcare professionals' responses to the valid and reliable Climate and Health Tool and compare participant characteristics relating to Climate and Health Tool subscales.
Observational, cross-sectional, multi-site study.
An electronic survey containing the Climate and Health Tool was administered to healthcare professionals across a large, multi-state health system in the Western United States with a committed effort to reducing carbon emissions.
One thousand three hundred and sixty-three participants reported moderately elevated levels of awareness and concern around climate impacts on health and motivation to participate in climate protective actions. Respondents reported moderate levels of climate-protecting behaviours at home and low levels at work. Females were more concerned and motivated. Medical staff and respondents reporting familiarity with system environmental initiatives reported more awareness and behaviours at home to preserve climate health.
Healthcare professionals are concerned and motivated to decrease climate impacts on health yet take little action at work to preserve the climate. Because of the intersection of climate change, health, and healthcare, healthcare organizations should prioritize and support meaningful action for healthcare professionals to meet community climate health needs.
Healthcare organizations committed to contributing to climate solutions can use this research to increase healthcare professionals' education, engagement, and impact to preserve the climate and health of communities.
Healthcare is a major contributor to carbon emissions, yet healthcare professionals' awareness, motivation, concern, and behaviours related to climate change and health were not clear. Our research showed healthcare professionals are aware and concerned about climate impacts on health but reported low levels of workplace behaviours to protect the climate. The findings of our research will impact healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations to focus efforts on climate-preserving behaviours.
This manuscript followed the STROBE guidelines.
None.
Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) are models that estimate the risk of malignancy in ovarian masses based on clinical and ultrasound information. The aim is to perform a meta-analysis of studies that compared the performance of the two models in the same patients (‘head-to-head comparison’).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Systematic literature search from publication of ADNEX model (15/10/2014) up to 31/07/2024 in Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline (via PubMed) and EuropePMC.
We included all studies that externally validated the performance of ADNEX (with or without CA125) and RMI on the same data.
Two independent reviewers extracted data using a standardised extraction sheet. We assessed risk of bias using PROBAST. We performed random effects meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and clinical utility (net benefit, relative utility and probability of being useful in a hypothetical new centre) at thresholds commonly used clinically (10% risk of malignancy for ADNEX, 200 for RMI).
We included 11 studies comprising 8271 tumours. Most studies were at high risk of bias. The summary AUC to distinguish benign from malignant tumours in operated patients for ADNEX with CA125 was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94) and for RMI it was 0.85 (0.81 to 0.89). Sensitivity and specificity for ADNEX with CA125 were 0.93 (0.90 to 0.96) and 0.77 (0.71 to 0.81) and for RMI, they were 0.61 (0.56 to 0.67) and 0.92 (0.89 to 0.94). The probability of the test being useful in a hypothetical new centre in operated patients was 96% for ADNEX with CA125 and 15% for RMI at the selected thresholds.
ADNEX has better discrimination and clinical utility than RMI.
Cluster analysis, a machine learning-based and data-driven technique for identifying groups in data, has demonstrated its potential in a wide range of contexts. However, critical appraisal and reproducibility are often limited by insufficient reporting, ultimately hampering the interpretation and trust of key stakeholders. The present paper describes the protocol that will guide the development of a reporting guideline and checklist for studies incorporating cluster analyses—Transparent Reporting of Cluster Analyses.
Following the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network, the work will be divided into six stages. Stage 1: literature review to guide development of initial checklist. Stage 2: drafting of the initial checklist. Stage 3: internal revision of checklist. Stage 4: Delphi study in a global sample of researchers from varying fields (n=) to derive consensus regarding items in the checklist and piloting of the checklist. Stage 5: consensus meeting to consolidate checklist. Stage 6: production of statement paper and explanation and elaboration paper. Stage 7: dissemination via journals, conferences, social media and a dedicated web platform.
Due to local regulations, the planned study is exempt from the requirement of ethical review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The checklist with explanations will also be made available freely on a dedicated web platform (troca-statement.org) and in a repository.
FreshRSS 