ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2023
Potential Factors of Primary Hospital Healthcare Professionals in Hindering the Abolition of Routine Skin Test for Cephalosporin: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Point education" and "rotation communication" on antimicrobial policy implementation: an interrupted time series analysis of declining cephalosporin skin test rates.BMC health services research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2021, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of Chinese issued a document that no longer recommended the routine skin test for cephalosporin (RSTC). However, there is still resistance to the cancellation of RSTC in a primary hospital. The study aimed to explore the potential factors for hindering the abolition of the RSTC in a county-level hospital based on the PRECEDE model. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted on healthcare workers in the Pidu District People's Hospital, Chengdu, by online questionnaire from September 10 to September 25 in the 2021.The PRECEDE model was used to divide the potential factors of healthcare professionals in hindering the abolition of the RSTC into predisposing factors, enabling factors and reinforcing factors. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, Chi-square test, multiple linear and multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: We collected 605 respondents' valid questionnaires. 254 healthcare professionals were against cancellation of the RSTC, accounting for 41.98%. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that working for 6~10 years (β = 1.953, P = 0.024), medium (β = 1.995, P = 0.030) or senior (β = 4.003, P = 0.007) professional qualification, pharmacists (β = 3.830, P = 0.013) and working in surgical department (β= 4.462, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher score of predisposing factors, enabling factors, and reinforcing factors on abolition of RSTC. Furthermore, multiple logistic regression analysis showed that pharmacists (OR=3.113, 95% CI: 1.341-7.223, P=0.030), medium professional qualification (OR=1.272, 95% CI: 0.702-2.302, P=0.008), scores of predisposing factors (OR=1.335, 95% CI: 1.033-1.726, P=0.009), and scores of enabling factors (OR=1.208, 95% CI: 1.109-1.315, P<0.001) were independently associated with the positive anticipated behavior on the abolition of RSTC. While nurses (OR=0.516, 95% CI: 0.284-0.938, P<0.001) were independently associated with anticipated negative behavior. Conclusion: Pharmacists, medium professional qualification, and healthcare professionals with higher scores of predisposing and enabling factors were more likely to have a positive anticipated behavior on the abolition of RSTC, while nurses did not.
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.