比较加权方法,了解公共卫生护理干预带来的改善结果。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nursing Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000750
Jared D Huling, Robin R Austin, Sheng-Chieh Lu, Michelle A Mathiason, Anna M Pirsch, Karen A Monsen
{"title":"比较加权方法,了解公共卫生护理干预带来的改善结果。","authors":"Jared D Huling, Robin R Austin, Sheng-Chieh Lu, Michelle A Mathiason, Anna M Pirsch, Karen A Monsen","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The complex work of public health nurses (PHNs) specifically related to mental health assessment, intervention, and outcomes makes it difficult to quantify and evaluate the improvement in client outcomes attributable to their interventions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We examined heterogeneity across parents of infants served by PHNs receiving different interventions, compared the ability of traditional propensity scoring methods versus energy-balancing weight (EBW) techniques to adjust for the complex and stark differences in baseline characteristics among those receiving different interventions, and evaluated the causal effects of the quantity and variety of PHN interventions on client health and social outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study of 4,109 clients used existing Omaha System data generated during the routine documentation of PHN home visit data. We estimated the effects of intervention by computing and comparing weighted averages of the outcomes within the different treatment groups using two weighting methods: (a) inverse probability of treatment (propensity score) weighting and (b) EBWs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clients served by PHNs differed in baseline characteristics with clients with more signs/symptoms. Both weighting methods reduced heterogeneity in the sample. EBWs were more effective than inverse probability of treatment weighting in adjusting for multifaceted confounding and resulted in close balance of 105 baseline characteristics. Weighting the sample changed outcome patterns, especially when using EBWs. Clients who received more PHN interventions and a wider variety of them had improved knowledge, behavior, and status outcomes with no plateau over time, whereas the unweighted sample showed plateaus in outcomes over the course of home-visiting services.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Causal analysis of PHN-generated data demonstrated PHN intervention effectiveness for clients with mental health signs/symptoms. EBWs are a promising tool for evaluating the true causal effect of PHN home-visiting interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":"390-398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Weighting Methods to Understand Improved Outcomes Attributable to Public Health Nursing Interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Jared D Huling, Robin R Austin, Sheng-Chieh Lu, Michelle A Mathiason, Anna M Pirsch, Karen A Monsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The complex work of public health nurses (PHNs) specifically related to mental health assessment, intervention, and outcomes makes it difficult to quantify and evaluate the improvement in client outcomes attributable to their interventions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We examined heterogeneity across parents of infants served by PHNs receiving different interventions, compared the ability of traditional propensity scoring methods versus energy-balancing weight (EBW) techniques to adjust for the complex and stark differences in baseline characteristics among those receiving different interventions, and evaluated the causal effects of the quantity and variety of PHN interventions on client health and social outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study of 4,109 clients used existing Omaha System data generated during the routine documentation of PHN home visit data. We estimated the effects of intervention by computing and comparing weighted averages of the outcomes within the different treatment groups using two weighting methods: (a) inverse probability of treatment (propensity score) weighting and (b) EBWs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clients served by PHNs differed in baseline characteristics with clients with more signs/symptoms. Both weighting methods reduced heterogeneity in the sample. EBWs were more effective than inverse probability of treatment weighting in adjusting for multifaceted confounding and resulted in close balance of 105 baseline characteristics. Weighting the sample changed outcome patterns, especially when using EBWs. Clients who received more PHN interventions and a wider variety of them had improved knowledge, behavior, and status outcomes with no plateau over time, whereas the unweighted sample showed plateaus in outcomes over the course of home-visiting services.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Causal analysis of PHN-generated data demonstrated PHN intervention effectiveness for clients with mental health signs/symptoms. EBWs are a promising tool for evaluating the true causal effect of PHN home-visiting interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"390-398\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000750\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000750","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:公共卫生护士(PHNs)的工作非常复杂,特别是与心理健康评估、干预和结果有关的工作,这使得量化和评估因其干预而改善的客户结果变得非常困难:我们研究了接受不同干预措施的 PHN 服务的婴儿父母之间的异质性;比较了传统倾向评分方法与能量平衡权重技术在调整接受不同干预措施的婴儿父母之间复杂而明显的基线特征差异方面的能力;并评估了 PHN 干预措施的数量和种类对客户健康和社会结果的因果效应:这项针对 4109 名客户的回顾性研究使用了奥马哈系统(Omaha System)在日常记录 PHN 家访数据时生成的现有数据。我们通过计算和比较不同治疗组结果的加权平均值来估算干预效果,使用了两种加权方法:(a) 逆治疗概率(倾向分数)加权和 (b) 能量平衡加权(EBWs):结果:接受公共卫生网络服务的患者在基线特征上存在差异,有更多体征/症状的患者。两种加权方法都降低了样本的异质性。在调整多方面混杂因素方面,EBW 比逆向治疗概率加权法更有效,并使 105 个基线特征接近平衡。样本加权改变了结果模式,尤其是在使用能量平衡加权时。接受了更多 PHN 干预且干预种类更多的客户,其知识、行为和状态结果均有所改善,且没有随着时间的推移而趋于稳定,而未加权的样本在家访服务过程中结果趋于稳定:讨论:对 PHN 生成的数据进行的因果分析表明,PHN 对有心理健康迹象/症状的客户的干预是有效的。EBWs是评估PHN家访干预措施真实因果效应的一种很有前途的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Weighting Methods to Understand Improved Outcomes Attributable to Public Health Nursing Interventions.

Background: The complex work of public health nurses (PHNs) specifically related to mental health assessment, intervention, and outcomes makes it difficult to quantify and evaluate the improvement in client outcomes attributable to their interventions.

Objectives: We examined heterogeneity across parents of infants served by PHNs receiving different interventions, compared the ability of traditional propensity scoring methods versus energy-balancing weight (EBW) techniques to adjust for the complex and stark differences in baseline characteristics among those receiving different interventions, and evaluated the causal effects of the quantity and variety of PHN interventions on client health and social outcomes.

Methods: This retrospective study of 4,109 clients used existing Omaha System data generated during the routine documentation of PHN home visit data. We estimated the effects of intervention by computing and comparing weighted averages of the outcomes within the different treatment groups using two weighting methods: (a) inverse probability of treatment (propensity score) weighting and (b) EBWs.

Results: Clients served by PHNs differed in baseline characteristics with clients with more signs/symptoms. Both weighting methods reduced heterogeneity in the sample. EBWs were more effective than inverse probability of treatment weighting in adjusting for multifaceted confounding and resulted in close balance of 105 baseline characteristics. Weighting the sample changed outcome patterns, especially when using EBWs. Clients who received more PHN interventions and a wider variety of them had improved knowledge, behavior, and status outcomes with no plateau over time, whereas the unweighted sample showed plateaus in outcomes over the course of home-visiting services.

Discussion: Causal analysis of PHN-generated data demonstrated PHN intervention effectiveness for clients with mental health signs/symptoms. EBWs are a promising tool for evaluating the true causal effect of PHN home-visiting interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信