ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2018
Leveraging the Medical Context to Increase Upper Extremity Reconstruction Among Patients With Tetraplegia: A Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Identifying barriers to upper extremity reconstruction in tetraplegia: a systematic scoping review.Spinal cord · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo (1) characterize patients' medical experiences from initial injury until they become candidates for upper extremity reconstruction (UER); and (2) identify points in this medical context that may be most amenable to interventions designed to increase UER utilization.
designA qualitative cross-sectional study using grounded theory methodology and constant comparative analysis of data collected through semistructured individual interviews.
settingCommunity.
participantsA sample of individuals with C4 to C8 cervical spinal injuries (N=19) who sustained injuries at least 1 year before interview. Nine patients had undergone reconstruction, and 10 had not. The study sample was predominantly male (79%) and white (89%), and American Spinal Injury Association grades A through D were represented (A, 42%; B, 32%; C, 16%; D, 10%).
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresParticipants' self-report of their medical experiences from the time of injury through the early recovery period.
resultsWe identified 3 domains that formed patients' medical context before UER candidacy: (1) their ability to achieve and maintain health; (2) their relationship with health care providers; and (3) their expectations regarding clinicians' tetraplegia-specific expertise. Trust emerged as a major theme driving potential intervention targets. Patients transferred to referral centers had higher trust in tertiary providers relative to local physicians. In the outpatient setting, patients' trust correlated with the tetraplegia-specific expertise level they perceived the specialty to have (high for physical medicine and rehabilitation, intermediate for urology, low for primary care).
conclusionsIn appropriate candidates, UER produces substantial functional gains, but reconstruction remains underused in the tetraplegic population. By analyzing how patients achieve health and build trust in early recovery/injury, our study provides strategies to improve UER access. We propose that interventions targeting highly trusted points of care (transfer hospitals) and avoiding low-trust points (primary care physicians, home health) will be most effective. Urology may represent a novel entry point for UER interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.