EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

10.3928/08910162-20080701-01

CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs · 2000

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

<h4>Background</h4>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable harm, and risk-appropriate prophylaxis administration is often suboptimal because of inconsistent practices and gaps in knowledge. The authors disseminated a validated web-based interactive nurse education module on VTE prevention and evaluated nurses' perspectives.<h4>Method</h4>A descriptive cross-sectional electronic post-education survey of trauma nurses was conducted at nine Level I to II centers in the Consortium of Leaders in the study Of Traumatic Thromboembolism (CLOTT) Network. Data were summarized descriptively and with conventional content analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Of 922 participants, 817 completed the post-education survey (88.6% response rate). A high proportion of positive ratings were received for applicability (96%), communication (95%), appropriateness (92%), engagement (87%), satisfaction (78%), and preference over other online clinical education modules (77%). Qualitatively, 53.7% responded positively (appropriateness and satisfaction), whereas 40.7% responded negatively (technology and variation in institutional electronic systems).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Nurses rated the module as applicable to bedside practice. Feedback highlighted role-specific relevance and realistic scenarios and identified cross-site technology and workflow fit as considerations for broader dissemination.

Abstract: PubMed · Datensatz

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Nicht angegeben
Quelle
CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs
Publikation
2000-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
0849-6757
Zitationen
1 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

(2000). 10.3928/08910162-20080701-01. CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20260529-01
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON