The Influence of Participation in an Intensive Care Trial on Health Practitioners' Knowledge of the Results-A Self-Reported Survey.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Advanced Nursing Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1111/jan.16641
Diane M Mackle, Katherine Nelson, Richard W Beasley, Allie Eathorne, Paul J Young
{"title":"The Influence of Participation in an Intensive Care Trial on Health Practitioners' Knowledge of the Results-A Self-Reported Survey.","authors":"Diane M Mackle, Katherine Nelson, Richard W Beasley, Allie Eathorne, Paul J Young","doi":"10.1111/jan.16641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The Intensive Care Unit Randomised Trial Comparing Two Approaches to Oxygen Therapy Trial (ICU-ROX) compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual care in mechanically ventilated adults in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Dissemination focused on publication and presentation, with no targeted approach. The current study aimed to investigate whether health practitioners from intensive care units that participated in ICU-ROX were more likely to report they knew the trial results and had read the publication than those from intensive care units that did not participate; explore whether there was a difference between doctors' and nurses' knowledge of the ICU-ROX results and whether they read the publication.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Survey using a self-administered, quantitative design, developed for this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Convenience sample of 197 Australian and New Zealand intensive care specialist doctors and nurses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference in the knowledge of the study results between respondents from intensive care units that participated in ICU-ROX compared to those that did not. Nurses were significantly less likely to have knowledge of the trial results or have read the publication than doctors. The commonest way for doctors and nurses to get the results was by word of mouth at work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participation in ICU-ROX did not make a difference to knowledge of the findings. While the dissemination of trial results was extensive, it failed to adequately reach nurses, who play an important role in administering oxygen in intensive care.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>This study has provided further evidence that nurses working in intensive care were unlikely to read the research results of an important study about oxygen management.</p><p><strong>Implications for the profession: </strong>Researchers, unit management and nurse leaders need to ensure dissemination methods that will reach nurses are used for research findings.</p><p><strong>Reporting method: </strong>This study followed the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies.</p><p><strong>Patient or public contribution: </strong>No patient or public contribution.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study is a substudy of a trial that was prospectively registered before the first participant was recruited: ACTRN12615000957594.</p>","PeriodicalId":54897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16641","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The Intensive Care Unit Randomised Trial Comparing Two Approaches to Oxygen Therapy Trial (ICU-ROX) compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual care in mechanically ventilated adults in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Dissemination focused on publication and presentation, with no targeted approach. The current study aimed to investigate whether health practitioners from intensive care units that participated in ICU-ROX were more likely to report they knew the trial results and had read the publication than those from intensive care units that did not participate; explore whether there was a difference between doctors' and nurses' knowledge of the ICU-ROX results and whether they read the publication.

Design: Survey using a self-administered, quantitative design, developed for this study.

Methods: Convenience sample of 197 Australian and New Zealand intensive care specialist doctors and nurses.

Results: There was no difference in the knowledge of the study results between respondents from intensive care units that participated in ICU-ROX compared to those that did not. Nurses were significantly less likely to have knowledge of the trial results or have read the publication than doctors. The commonest way for doctors and nurses to get the results was by word of mouth at work.

Conclusions: Participation in ICU-ROX did not make a difference to knowledge of the findings. While the dissemination of trial results was extensive, it failed to adequately reach nurses, who play an important role in administering oxygen in intensive care.

Impact: This study has provided further evidence that nurses working in intensive care were unlikely to read the research results of an important study about oxygen management.

Implications for the profession: Researchers, unit management and nurse leaders need to ensure dissemination methods that will reach nurses are used for research findings.

Reporting method: This study followed the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies.

Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Trial registration: This study is a substudy of a trial that was prospectively registered before the first participant was recruited: ACTRN12615000957594.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与重症监护试验对医护人员对试验结果认知的影响——一项自述调查。
目的:重症监护病房随机试验比较两种氧治疗方法试验(ICU-ROX)比较了澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护病房机械通气成人的保守氧治疗与常规护理。传播侧重于出版和展示,没有针对性的方法。本研究旨在调查参加ICU-ROX的重症监护病房的卫生从业人员是否比没有参加ICU-ROX的重症监护病房的卫生从业人员更有可能报告他们知道试验结果并阅读了出版物;探讨医生和护士对ICU-ROX结果的了解是否存在差异,以及他们是否阅读了出版物。设计:调查采用自我管理,定量设计,为本研究开发。方法:对197名澳大利亚和新西兰重症专科医生和护士进行方便抽样。结果:参与ICU-ROX的重症监护病房受访者与未参与ICU-ROX的受访者之间对研究结果的了解没有差异。与医生相比,护士了解试验结果或阅读出版物的可能性要低得多。医生和护士获得结果最常见的方式是在工作中口口相传。结论:参与ICU-ROX对结果的了解没有影响。虽然试验结果的传播是广泛的,但它没有充分达到护士,谁在重症监护中管理氧气发挥重要作用。影响:这项研究提供了进一步的证据,证明在重症监护室工作的护士不太可能阅读一项关于氧气管理的重要研究的研究结果。对专业的影响:研究人员,单位管理和护士领导需要确保传播方法将达到护士用于研究结果。报告方法:本研究遵循观察性研究的STROBE报告指南。患者或公众捐款:没有患者或公众捐款。试验注册:本研究是在招募第一名受试者之前前瞻性注册的一项试验的子研究:ACTRN12615000957594。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.90%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) contributes to the advancement of evidence-based nursing, midwifery and healthcare by disseminating high quality research and scholarship of contemporary relevance and with potential to advance knowledge for practice, education, management or policy. All JAN papers are required to have a sound scientific, evidential, theoretical or philosophical base and to be critical, questioning and scholarly in approach. As an international journal, JAN promotes diversity of research and scholarship in terms of culture, paradigm and healthcare context. For JAN’s worldwide readership, authors are expected to make clear the wider international relevance of their work and to demonstrate sensitivity to cultural considerations and differences.
期刊最新文献
The Fundamentals of Care Framework: Application Within a Post-Graduate Nursing Programme Facilitated by a Pedagogical Project for Educators A Response to the Article ‘Exploring Implementation of Reasonable Adjustments in Hospitals for People With Intellectual Disability: Using a Realist Lens’ Understanding Self-Care Patterns in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Insights From a Mixed Methods Study Tensions and Opportunities in Nurse, Midwife, and Peer Worker Collaborations in Healthcare Delivery: A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Safety Behaviour of Oncology Nurses: A Latent Profile Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1