“History provides current nurses with the same intellectual and political tools that determined nursing pioneers applied to shape nursing values and beliefs to the social context of their times. Nursing history is not an ornament to be displayed on anniversary days, nor does it consist of only happy stories to be recalled and retold on special occasions. Nursing history is a vivid testimony, meant to incite, instruct, and inspire today’s nurses as they bravely tread the winding path of a reinvented health care system.” (American Association for History of Nursing)
We need nurse historians–those researchers who can help us understand the present and future by examining the past!
MY PROJECT just published (amazon/apple books/kindle): A Time to Heal: Missionary Nurses in Churches of Christ, Southeastern Nigeria (1953-1967). I like to think of the work as accessible history told from the point of view of those who lived it. A take-away for me from their story is: Don’t let your current inexperience or limited knowledge stop you from doing the good you see to do.
MORE INFO: Check out the resources of the American Association for History of Nursing. “Talking History” events online are the current norm, so check them out and join us.
|Sat Jan 23, 2021Webinar | Public Health and DisasterCategory: Webinar|
|Fri Jan 29, 2021PhD Student Networking CallCategory: Events|
|Sat Feb 20, 2021Webinar | Midwifery and RaceCategory: Webinar|
|Fri Mar 19, 2021Webinar | Nursing EductationCategory: Webinar|
|Fri Apr 16, 2021Webinar | War and NursingCategory: Webinar|
Check out this re-post of my Christmas-y blog:
What’s the difference between statistical and clinical significance? Here’s a quick, non-exhaustive intro.
In short, statistical significance is when the difference in outcomes between an experimental and a control group is greater than would happen by chance alone. For example, in a trial of whether gum chewing promoted return of bowel activity among post-op patients, one post-op group would chew gum and the other group would not. Then researchers would statistically compare timing of return of bowel activity between the two groups to see if the difference was greater than would occur by chance (p<.05 or p<.01). If the probability (p) level of the statistical test is less than .05 then we have very strong evidence that gum chewing made the difference. [See example of gum chewing trial in free full text Ledari, Barat, & Delavar (2012).]
All well and good.
However, the effect of an intervention may be statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful to practitioners. Or the intervention’s effects may not be statistically significant, and yet still be clinically important enough to be worth the time, cost, and effort it takes to implement.
What is clinical significance, and how can we tell if something is clinically significant? Two overlapping views:
- “Clinical relevance (also known as clinical significance) indicates whether the results of a study are meaningful or not for several stakeholders.7 A clinically relevant intervention is the one whose effects are large enough to make the associated costs, inconveniences, and harms worthwhile.8” (Armiji-Oliva, 2018).
- Clinical significance is “the practical importance of research results in terms of whether they have genuine, palpable effects on the daily lives of patients or on the health care decisions made on their behalf” (p. 449, Polit & Beck 2012).
Let me illustrate. Researchers recently examined the effects of a 1300-1500 quiet time on a post-partum unit. Outcome measures showed that women’s exclusive breastfeeding rates increased 14%. However, this change was not statistically significant (p = .39)—a probability value well above p < .05. Nonetheless, researchers concluded that the findings were clinically significant because a higher percent of women exclusively breastfed their infants after quiet time, and arguably for those couplets the difference was “genuine” and “palpable” (p. 449, Polit & Beck). The time, cost, and effort of implementing a low risk quiet time was reasonably associated with producing valuable outcomes for some.
Always remember that the higher the risk of the intervention, the more cautious should be your translation of findings into a particular practice setting. Don’t overestimate, but don’t overlook, clinical significance in your search to improve patient care.
Critical thinking: How might issues of statistical versus clinical significance inform the dialogue on mask wearing during the pandemic?
For more info:
- Armijo-Olivo, S. (2018). The importance of determining the clinical significance of research results in physical therapy clinical research. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, 22(3), 175-176. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.02.001
- Polit & Beck (2012) Nursing research on pages 449-456 discuss clinical significance in terms of individuals and groups.
Homemade masks: 1918 & 2020
This Op Ed from Am Assoc for History of Nursing website by Marian Moser Jones
University of Maryland School of Public Health
Check it out & share your perspective: https://www.aahn.org/home-made-masks–useful-but-not-enough-in-1918–useful-but-not-enough-now
I recommend this event. I have no conflict of interest.
New virtual EBP Institute – Advanced Practice Institute: Promoting Adoption of Evidence-Based Practice is going virtual this October.
This Institute is a unique advanced program designed to build skills in the most challenging steps of the evidence-based practice process and in creating an organizational infrastructure to support evidence-based health care. Participants will learn how to implement, evaluate, and sustain EBP changes in complex health care systems.
Each participant also receives Evidence-Based Practice in Action: Comprehensive Strategies, Tools, and Tips From the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. This book is an application-oriented EBP resource organized based on the latest Iowa Model and can be used with any practice change. The Institute will include tools and strategies directly from the book.
3-Day Virtual Institute
Wednesday, October 7
Wednesday, October 14
Wednesday, October 21
(participation is required for all 3 days)
Special pricing for this virtual institute: 5 participants from the same institution for the price of 4
Learn more and register for the October 2020 Advanced Practice Institute: Promoting Adoption of Evidence-Based Practice.
Administrative Services Specialist | Nursing Research & Evidence-Based Practice
University of Iowa Health Care | Department of Nursing Services and Patient Care
200 Hawkins Dr, T155 GH, Iowa City, IA 52242 | 319-384-6737
So I’ve been pretty skeptical about people sewing protective face masks at home. And, as with a lot of things we don’t have all the data that we wish we had. So…I’m putting this scientific evidence out there and encouraging you to contribute to this blog by adding other scientific data.
Nevertheless, the expert opinion at CDC is that they are in the “Better Than Nothing” category and gives this additional advice. “In settings where N95 respirators are so limited that routinely practiced standards of care for wearing N95 respirators and equivalent or higher level of protection respirators are no longer possible, and surgical masks are not available, as a last resort, it may be necessary for HCP to use masks that have never been evaluated or approved by NIOSH or homemade masks. It
may be considered to use these masks for care of patients with COVID-19, tuberculosis, measles, and varicella. However, caution should be exercised when considering this option.1,2“
Anecdotally, providers are using them to extend the life of other masks or N95s. Women are also making some with little pockets for other filters, and a material called HANIBON that can be purchased online is used often on the outer layer of disposable masks and works to block out dust and fluids from entering.
- Dato, VM, Hostler, D, and Hahn, ME. Simple Respiratory Maskexternal icon, Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(6):1033–1034.
- Rengasamy S, Eimer B, and Shaffer R. Simple respiratory protection-evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particlesexternal icon, Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54(7):789-98.
“Sew” there you have it. Expert opinion is that as a last resort you may use inadequately tested cloth masks if it is all you have. I am grateful for all those sewists out there responding to medical center calls to supply them with cotton and elastic homemade masks, and sending out the patterns to do so. Field medicine.
CDC also says “The filters used in modern surgical masks and respirators are considered “fibrous” in nature—constructed from flat, nonwoven mats of fine fibers” If this is true then would nonwoven interfacing improve the homemade masks?
Credible sources often disagree on technicalities. Sometimes this includes classification of research design. Some argue that there are only 2 categories of research design:
- True experiments. True experiments have 3 elements: 1) randomization to groups, 2) a control group and an 3) intervention; and
- Non-experiments. Non-experiments may have 1 to none of those 3 elements.
Fundamentally, I agree with the above. But what about designs that include an intervention and a control group, but Not randomization?
Those may be called quasi-experiments; the most often performed quasi-experiment is pre/post testing of a single group. The control group are subjects at baseline and the experimental group are the same subjects after they receive a treatment or intervention. That means the control group is a within-subjects control group (as opposed to between-group control). Quasi-experiments can be used to answer cause-and-effect hypothesis when an experiment may not be feasible or ethical.
One might even argue that a strength of pre/post, quasi-experiments is that we do Not have to Assume that control and experimental groups are equivalent–an assumption we would make about the subjects randomized (randomly assigned) to a control or experimental group. Instead the control and experimental are exactly equivalent because they are the same persons (barring maturation of subjects and similar threats to validity that are also true of experiments).
I think using the term quasi-experiments makes it clear that persons in the study receive an intervention. Adding “pre/post” means that the
researcher is using a single group as their own controls. I prefer to use the term non-experimental to mean a) descriptive studies (ones that just describe the situation) and b) correlation studies (ones without an intervention that look for whether one factor is related to another).
What do you think? 2? or 3?
Enrolled in an MSN….and wondering what to do for an evidence-based clinical project?
Recently a former student contacted me about that very question. Part of my response to her is below:
“One good place to start if you are flexible on your topic is to look through Cochrane Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute, AHRQ Clinical Practice Guidelines, or similar for very strong evidence on a particular topic and then work to move that into practice in some way. (e.g., right now I’m involved in a project on using evidence of a Cochrane review on the benefits of music listening–not therapy–in improving patient outcomes like pain, mood, & opioid use).
Once you narrow the topic it will get easier. Also, you can apply only the best evidence you have, so if there isn’t much research or other evidence about the topic you might have to tackle the problem from a different angle” or pick an area where there IS enough evidence to apply.