AimThe Intensive Care Unit Randomised Trial Comparing Two Approaches to Oxygen Therapy Trial (ICU‐ROX) compared conservative oxygen therapy with usual care in mechanically ventilated adults in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. Dissemination focused on publication and presentation, with no targeted approach.The current study aimed to investigate whether health practitioners from intensive care units that participated in ICU‐ROX were more likely to report they knew the trial results and had read the publication than those from intensive care units that did not participate; explore whether there was a difference between doctors' and nurses' knowledge of the ICU‐ROX results and whether they read the publication. DesignSurvey using a self‐administered, quantitative design, developed for this study.MethodsConvenience sample of 197 Australian and New Zealand intensive care specialist doctors and nurses.ResultsThere was no difference in the knowledge of the study results between respondents from intensive care units that participated in ICU‐ROX compared to those that did not. Nurses were significantly less likely to have knowledge of the trial results or have read the publication than doctors. The commonest way for doctors and nurses to get the results was by word of mouth at work.ConclusionsParticipation in ICU‐ROX did not make a difference to knowledge of the findings. While the dissemination of trial results was extensive, it failed to adequately reach nurses, who play an important role in administering oxygen in intensive care.ImpactThis study has provided further evidence that nurses working in intensive care were unlikely to read the research results of an important study about oxygen management.Implications for the Profession Researchers, unit management and nurse leaders need to ensure dissemination methods that will reach nurses are used for research findings. Reporting MethodThis study followed the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies.Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.Trial RegistrationThis study is a substudy of a trial that was prospectively registered before the first participant was recruited: ACTRN12615000957594

中文翻译：

---

参与重症监护试验对健康从业者对结果了解的影响——一项自我报告的调查


目的重症监护病房随机试验比较两种氧疗方法试验 （ICU-ROX） 在澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护病房的机械通气成人中比较了保守氧疗与常规护理。传播侧重于发表和展示，没有有针对性的方法。目前的研究旨在调查参与 ICU-ROX 的重症监护病房的卫生从业者是否比未参与的重症监护病房的卫生从业者更有可能报告他们知道试验结果并阅读了出版物;探讨医生和护士对 ICU-ROX 结果的了解是否存在差异，以及他们是否阅读了出版物。DesignSurvey 使用为本研究开发的自我管理的定量设计。方法197 名澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护专科医生和护士的便利样本。结果参与 ICU-ROX 的重症监护病房受访者与未参与 ICU-ROX 的受访者对研究结果的了解没有差异。与医生相比，护士了解试验结果或阅读出版物的可能性显著降低。医生和护士获得结果的最常见方式是在工作中口耳相传。结论参与 ICU-ROX 对研究结果的了解没有影响。虽然试验结果的传播很广泛，但未能充分覆盖护士，他们在重症监护中吸氧方面发挥着重要作用。影响这项研究提供了进一步的证据，表明在重症监护室工作的护士不太可能阅读一项关于氧气管理的重要研究结果。对专业的影响研究人员、部门管理人员和护士领导需要确保将到达护士的传播方法用于研究结果。报告方法本研究遵循观察性研究的 STROBE 报告指南。患者或公众捐款没有患者或公众捐款。试验注册本研究是在招募第一个参与者之前前瞻性注册的试验的子研究： ACTRN12615000957594