ArticleBMC nursing2022
Difference between self-reported adherence to standard precautions and surveillance and factors influencing observed adherence: a quantile regression approach.
Article in BMC nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Self-reported adherence of ambulance nurses to acute chest pain guidelines in Southern Sweden: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Compliance with transmission-based precautions, and associated factors among healthcare providers in Cameroon: a cross-sectional study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Article
- Comparison of the conceive-design-implement-operate model and lecture-based learning in teaching the "healthcare-associated infections" course.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of donning and doffing personal protective equipment education using video debriefing among Korean undergraduate nursing students.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Nursing staff compliance and adherence to standard precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.Nursing & health sciences · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandard precautions are minimum healthcare-associated infection prevention practices applied in all healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to investigate adherence to standard precautions using a survey and surveillance. Factors affecting observed adherence to standard precautions were also determined.
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study included 163 clinical nurses who were directly involved in patient care. Differences in adherence according to investigative methods are represented as a boxplot. Quantile regression was used to identify factors affecting observed adherence, including organizational factors (such as department, safety environment, and patient safety climate) and personal factors (such as knowledge and awareness). Stata SE version 14.2 was used for all statistical analyses.
resultsThe observed adherence to standard precautions was 76.8 out of 100, whereas the self-reported adherence was approximately 95. Hand hygiene adherence received the lowest score of less than 70. Factors influencing observed adherence were self-reported adherence (p = 0.043) in 25% and 50% quantiles, work experience (p = 0.002) in the 25% quantile, and working department (p = 0.030) in the 50% quantile. There were no significant factors in the 75% quantile.
conclusionInadequate adherence to standard precautions might increase healthcare-associated infections. Thus, an organizational environment such as nurse staffing needs to be established so that clinical nurses with high competency can comply with standard precautions in clinical settings.
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.