ArticleCurationis2025
Frontline nurses' adherence to COVID-19 policies in care delivery at a Johannesburg Academic Hospital.
Article in Curationis, 2025. 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNurses' adherence to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policies significantly impacts infection rates, yet various factors, including communication gaps, lack of policy involvement and insufficient training, hinder compliance.
objectivesThis study investigated the availability of COVID-19 infection control policies and frontline nurses' adherence to these policies at an academic hospital in Johannesburg.
methodA quantitative, descriptive-comparative design was employed, using stratified random sampling across three phases: policy document analysis, adherence assessment and observation. Phase one evaluated the comprehensiveness of policies from National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), Department of Health (DoH) (SA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers ffor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
resultsNational Institute for Communicable Diseases, DoH and academic hospital policies were 100% adequate, while CDC and NIH policies met 82% of assessed attributes. Phases two and three assessed adherence using questionnaires and observations. Results revealed higher adherence during direct patient contact (median 5/7; 70%) compared to pre- and post-contact behaviours (median 3/6; 50%). Principal component analysis showed a strong correlation (r = 0.903) between adherence and general precautionary measures.
conclusionDespite partial compliance, findings highlight a need for enhanced in-service training and improved communication strategies to promote policy adherence and minimise infection risks.Contribution: Recommendations are provided to strengthen nursing practice, education and policy development, empowering nurses with knowledge and strategies for effective infection control.
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.