ArticleNursing research
Capturing the Central Line Bundle Infection Prevention Interventions: Comparison of Reflective and Composite Modeling Methods.
Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe central line (CL) bundle interventions are important for preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), but a modeling method for testing the CL bundle interventions within a health systems framework is lacking.
objectivesGuided by the Quality Health Outcomes Model (QHOM), this study tested the CL bundle interventions in reflective and composite, latent, variable measurement models to assess the impact of the modeling approaches on an investigation of the relationships between adherence to the CL bundle interventions, organizational context, and CLABSIs.
methodsA secondary data analysis study was conducted using data from 614 U.S. hospitals that participated in the Prevention of Nosocomial Infection and Cost-Effectiveness Refined study. The sample was randomly split into exploration and validation subsets.
resultsThe two CL bundle modeling approaches resulted in adequate fitting structural models (RMSEA = .04; CFI = .94) and supported similar relationships within the QHOM. Adherence to the CL bundle had a direct effect on organizational context (reflective = .23; composite = .20; p = .01) and CLABSIs (reflective = -.28; composite = -.25; p = .01). The relationship between context and CLABSIs was not significant. Both modeling methods resulted in partial support of the QHOM. DISCUSSION: There were little statistical, but large, conceptual differences between the reflective and composite modeling approaches. The empirical impact of the modeling approaches was inconclusive, for both models resulted in a good fit to the data. Lessons learned are presented. The comparison of modeling approaches is recommended when initially modeling variables that have never been modeled or with directional ambiguity to increase transparency and bring confidence to study findings.
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.