Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27616936›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2016

Evaluation of person-centred care after hip replacement-a controlled before and after study on the effects of fear of movement and self-efficacy compared to standard care.

Lars-Eric Olsson, Elisabeth Hansson, Inger Ekman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Implementation of Person-Centered Care: A Feasibility Study Using the WE-CARE Roadmap.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Lars-Eric OlssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden ; Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Elisabeth HanssonInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Inger EkmanInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Box 457, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden ; Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is optimal pain relief and a normalized health-related quality of life. Anxious patients describe more pain and more difficulties than non-anxious patients during rehabilitation after THA. The aims of the present study were twofold: (1) to identify vulnerable patients using the general self-efficacy scale (GSES) and the Tampa scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and (2) to evaluate if person-centred care including the responses of the instruments made rehabilitation more effective in terms of shortening hospital length of stay.

methodsThe design of the study was quasi-experimental. Patients scheduled for THA, a control group (n = 138) and an intervention group (n = 128) were consecutively recruited. The intervention was the provision of person-centred care which was designed to reduce the negative effects of low self-efficacy and high levels of pain-related fear of movement.

resultsPatients with low GSES in the intervention group had shorter length of stay (LoS) by 1.6 days (95 % CI 0.16-3.15) p-value 0.03. Patients with high TSK in the intervention group had shorter LoS by 2.43 days (95 % CI 0.76-4.12) p-value 0.005. For patients who had both, the reduction of LoS was 2.15 days (95 % CI 0.24-4.04) p-value 0.028.

conclusionsThe GSES and the TSK instrument were found useful as tools to provide information to support patients which reduced the LoS by 1.67 days in the whole intervention group (95 % CI 0.72-2.62) p-value 0.001. More importantly, vulnerable patients such as ASA group 3 probably gained the most from the extra support, they had a reduction with 6.78 days (95 % CI 2.94-10.62) p-value 0.001.

Indexed as

ASA classificationGeneral self-efficacyHealth planNursing carePerson-centered carePerson-centred carePlanned surgery managementRehabilitationTampa Scale of KinesiophobiaTotal hip replacement

Identifiers

PMID27616936
PMCPMC5017008

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.