Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30964916›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Validating the Alberta Context Tool in a multi-site Australian Emergency Department nurse population.

Verena Schadewaldt, Benjamin McElduff, Catherine D'Este, Elizabeth McInnes, Simeon Dale, Anoja Gunaratne, Janet Squires, Dominique A Cadilhac, Sandy Middleton

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Verena SchadewaldtNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Benjamin McElduffNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Catherine D'EsteNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Elizabeth McInnesNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Simeon DaleNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3611-8740
Anoja GunaratneNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Janet SquiresSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Sandy MiddletonNursing Research Institute, Australian Catholic University and St Vincent's Health Australia Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7201-4394

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The organisational context of healthcare settings has an essential role in how research evidence is used in clinical practice. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) measures 10 concepts of organisational context with higher scores indicating a more positive work environment and potentially better use of research evidence in patient care. We assessed the psychometric properties of the ACT in Emergency Departments (EDs). This validation study was conducted as part of a multi-centre trial of triage, treatment and transfer (T3 Trial) of patients with stroke admitted to EDs. Stratified sampling with proportional allocation was used to recruit ED nurses from 26 participating hospitals at baseline. Nurses completed a survey containing the ACT. Structural validity was investigated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients. Item-rest correlations and the average inter-item correlations were also assessed. 558 ED nurses completed the survey, comprised of 433 surveys without missing data. Our exploratory factor analysis produced a 14-factor structure, explaining 62% of variance of organisational context. For eight of ten concepts, item loadings matched the factor structure of the original ACT. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 10 ACT concepts showed moderate model fit (p = 0.001, root mean square error of approximation: 0.049, standardised root mean squared residual: 0.048). Cronbach's alphas showed very good internal consistency for nine of ten ACT concepts (α>0.7; 0.45-0.90). Item-rest correlations indicated that most ACT items (50 of 56 items) within any concept related well to the total score of the concept. Average inter-item correlations indicated potential redundant items for three concepts (feedback processes, leadership, staffing) that were above the threshold of 0.5. While identifying a few shortcomings for some ACT concepts in an ED context, the majority of findings confirm reliability and validity of the original ACT in an Australian population of ED nurses.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence-Based PracticeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency NursingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesPsychometricsStrokeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30964916
PMCPMC6456203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.