MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing Leadership Capacity for Guideline Use: A Pilot Cluster Randomized Control Trial

2012· article· en· W1520937119 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetic Foot Ulcer Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsFleming CollegeUniversity of TorontoCustom Security Industries (Canada)Ministry of Health and Long Term CareCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth CanadaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsNursingGuidelineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialAuditPsychological interventionMedicineIntervention (counseling)Research designQualitative propertyCluster randomised controlled trialQualitative researchPsychologyPhysical therapyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: The importance of leadership to influence nurses' use of clinical guidelines has been well documented. However, little is known about how to develop and evaluate leadership interventions for guideline use. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to pilot a leadership intervention designed to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations when caring for patients with diabetic foot ulcers in home care nursing. This paper reports on the feasibility of implementing the study protocol, the trial findings related to nursing process outcomes, and leadership behaviors. METHODS: A mixed methods pilot study was conducted with a post-only cluster randomized controlled trial and descriptive qualitative interviews. Four units were randomized to control or experimental groups. Clinical and management leadership teams participated in a 12-week leadership intervention (workshop, teleconferences). Participants received summarized chart audit data, identified goals for change, and created a team leadership action. Criteria to assess feasibility of the protocol included: design, intervention, measures, and data collection procedures. For the trial, chart audits compared differences in nursing process outcomes. PRIMARY OUTCOME: 8-item nursing assessments score. Secondary outcome: 5-item score of nursing care based on goals for change identified by intervention participants. Qualitative interviews described leadership behaviors that influenced guideline use. RESULTS: Conducting this pilot showed some aspects of the study protocol were feasible, while others require further development. Trial findings observed no significant difference in the primary outcome. A significant increase was observed in the 5-item score chosen by intervention participants (p = 0.02). In the experimental group more relations-oriented leadership behaviors, audit and feedback and reminders were described as leadership strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that a leadership intervention has the potential to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations, but further work is required to refine the intervention and outcome measures. A taxonomy of leadership behaviors is proposed to inform future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.318
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.081 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it