ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2015
Evaluation of conceptual frameworks applicable to the study of isolation precautions effectiveness.
Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- An evaluation of conceptual frameworks to improve reproductive health outcomes among women with physical disabilities.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Pooled it
- A comparison of conceptual frameworks to examine health inequities in End-of-Life care.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Pooled it
- Patient care experience with utilization of isolation precautions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Explaining challenges of obstetric triage structure: A qualitative study.Nursing open · 2020Article
- The Quality of the Maternity Triage Process: a Qualitative Study.Advanced journal of emergency medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsA discussion of conceptual frameworks applicable to the study of isolation precautions effectiveness according to Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya's (2013) evaluation technique and their relative merits and drawbacks for this purpose.
backgroundIsolation precautions are recommended to control infectious diseases with high morbidity and mortality, but effectiveness is not established due to numerous methodological challenges. These challenges, such as identifying empirical indicators and refining operational definitions, could be alleviated though use of an appropriate conceptual framework.
designDiscussion paper. DATA SOURCES: In mid-April 2014, the primary author searched five electronic, scientific literature databases for conceptual frameworks applicable to study isolation precautions, without limiting searches by publication date. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: By reviewing promising conceptual frameworks to support isolation precautions effectiveness research, this article exemplifies the process to choose an appropriate conceptual framework for empirical research. Hence, researchers may build on these analyses to improve study design of empirical research in multiple disciplines, which may lead to improved research and practice.
conclusionThree frameworks were reviewed: the epidemiologic triad of disease, Donabedian's healthcare quality framework and the Quality Health Outcomes model. Each has been used in nursing research to evaluate health outcomes and contains concepts relevant to nursing domains. Which framework can be most useful probably depends on whether the study question necessitates testing multiple interventions, concerns pathogen-specific characteristics and yields cross-sectional or longitudinal data. The Quality Health Outcomes model may be slightly preferred as it assumes reciprocal relationships, multi-level analysis and is sensitive to cultural inputs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.