ArticleNursing open2026
Intensive Care Nurses' Self-Reported Adherence to Evidence-Informed Microaspiration-Prevention Practices and Potential Implementation Determinants: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Nursing open, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess intensive care nurses' self-reported adherence to recommended microaspiration-prevention practices and explore potential implementation determinants.
designMulticentre, cross-sectional.
methodsFrom December 2024 to February 2025, nurses in 31 intensive care units at 17 hospitals in Henan Province, China, completed a questionnaire on 22 preventive practices and 43 implementation-related items informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Bivariate analyses, a fully adjusted three-level mixed-effects model accounting for unit and hospital clustering, and generalised estimating equation sensitivity analyses examined associations.
resultsOf 510 respondents, 476 were analysed. Mean adherence was 77.17/110 (70.15% of maximum), with basic care scoring highest (73.6%) and risk management lowest (67.2%). After adjustment, adherence was lower in units with 10-14, 15-19 and ≥ 20 beds than in those with < 5 beds; the 5-9-bed group did not differ. Both training exposures were associated with higher adherence in the primary analysis; only evidence-based practice training remained significant in the 14-item analysis. The lowest-scoring items concerned near-term implementation intention (3.10), competing priorities (3.21), and professional responsibility (3.29); the highest concerned time efficiency (4.19), workflow compatibility (4.15) and interest (3.94).
conclusionSelf-reported adherence varied across practices and domains. Intensive care unit bed capacity and training exposure were associated with adherence, and implementation-related findings identified potential areas for further investigation. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Findings may guide intensive care unit nurses, nurse managers, and educators in strengthening targeted microaspiration-prevention training, clarifying responsibilities, integrating preventive practices into routine workflows, and reinforcing bedside supervision, particularly in units with 10-14, 15-19, or ≥ 20 beds. REPORTING
methodThe Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. Patient or Public Contribution: None.
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.