Applying Theory to Understand and Modify Nurse Intention to Adhere to Recommendations regarding the Use of Filter Needles: An Intervention Mapping Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The manipulation of glass ampoules involves risk of particle contamination of parenteral medication, and the use of filter needles has often been recommended in order to reduce the number of particles in these solutions. This study aims to develop a theory-based intervention to increase nurse intention to use filter needles according to clinical guideline recommendations produced by a large university medical centre in Quebec (Canada). Using the Intervention Mapping framework, we first identified the psychosocial determinants of nurse intention to use filter needles according to these recommendations. Second, we developed and implemented an intervention targeting nurses from five care units in order to increase their intention to adhere to recommendations on the use of filter needles. We also assessed nurse satisfaction with the intervention. In total, 270 nurses received the intervention and 169 completed the posttest questionnaire. The two determinants of intention, that is, attitude and perceived behavioral control, were significantly higher after the intervention, but only perceived behavioral control remained a predictor of intention. In general, nurses were highly satisfied with the intervention. This study provides support for the use of Intervention Mapping to develop, implement, and evaluate theory-based interventions in order to improve healthcare professional adherence to clinical recommendations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".