Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24057871›Full record

Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2014

Process evaluation of a multidisciplinary care program for patients undergoing gynaecological surgery.

E V A Bouwsma, A Vonk Noordegraaf, Z Szlávik, H A M Brölmann, M H Emanuel, J P Lips, W van Mechelen, A Mozes, A L Thurkow, J A F Huirne and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

E V A BouwsmaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ev.bouwsma@vumc.nl.
A Vonk Noordegraaf
Z Szlávik
H A M Brölmann
M H Emanuel
J P Lips
W van Mechelen
A Mozes
A L Thurkow
J A F Huirne
J R Anema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study describes the process evaluation of an innovative multidisciplinary care program for patients undergoing benign gynaecologic surgery. This care program aims at improving recovery and preventing delayed return to work and consists of two steps: (1) an interactive e-health intervention for all participants, and (2) integrated clinical and occupational care management for those participants whose sick leave exceeds 10 weeks.

methodsEligible for this study were employed women aged between 18-65 years scheduled for a laparoscopic adnexal surgery and/or hysterectomy. Data were collected from patients, their supervisors and their gynaecologists, by means of electronic questionnaires during a 6 month follow-up period and an automatically generated, detailed weblog of the patient web portal ( www.ikherstel.nl ). Investigated process measures included: reach, dose delivered, dose received, and fidelity. In addition, attitudes towards the intervention were explored among all stakeholders.

results215 patients enrolled in the study and accounted to a reach of 60.2 % (215/357). All intervention group patients used their account at least once and total time spent on the patient web portal was almost 2 h for each patient (median 118 min, IQR 64-173 min). Most patients visited the website several times (median 11 times, IQR 6-16). Perceived effectiveness among patients was high (74 %). In addition, gynaecologists (76 %) and employers (61 %) were satisfied with the web portal as well. Implementation of the second step of the intervention was suboptimal. Motivating patients to consent to additional guidance and developing an accurate return-to-work-prognosis were two important obstacles.

conclusionsThe results of this study indicate good feasibility for implementation on a broad scale of the e-health intervention for patients undergoing benign gynaecological surgery. To enhance the implementation of the second step of the perioperative care program, adaptations in the integrated care protocol are needed.

Indexed as

HysterectomyPatient Care TeamProgram EvaluationReturn to WorkTelemedicineAdnexa UteriAdultConvalescenceFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyNetherlandsOccupational MedicinePatient SatisfactionRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID24057871
PMCPMC4118044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.