Observational studyBMJ open2018
How does a new patient education programme for renal recipients become situated and adapted when implemented in the daily teaching practice in a university hospital? An ethnographic observation study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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.
- The importance of shared meaning-making for sustainable knowledge translation and health literacy.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Renal recipients' knowledge and self-efficacy during first year after implementing an evidence based educational intervention as routine care at the transplantation clinic.BMC nephrology · 2021Article
- Qualitative Research in Clinical Epidemiology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand how a new patient education programme for renal recipients becomes situated and adapted when implemented in daily hospital teaching practice. The analysis focuses in particular on how principles of individual tailoring and patient involvement are adapted.
designEthnographic observation study. 19 teaching sessions were observed, resulting in 35 pages of data written observation notes.
settingA Norwegian University hospital. The study included the transplantation (TX) post, the medical post and the outpatient clinic.
participants10 newly transplanted patients receiving the education programme, and 13 nurses trained in the new programme participated in the study.
resultsWe observed that the nurses attempted to implement the programme's core principles of individual tailoring and patient involvement as intended, but that patients found it difficult to formulate their knowledge needs and interest. Patients and nurses developed an approach to individual tailoring and patient involvement, which used knowledge about the patients' life and experiences as basis for translating generalised knowledge into knowledge that is individualised and meaningful for the patient. The individual tailoring was however also limited, as the nurses balanced between responsibilities for the programme's principles of individual adaption and patient involvement at the one hand, and responsibilities of safety and economy from a health systems perspective on the other hand.
conclusionIndividual tailoring is observed to be a comprehensive practice which includes verbal, practical and emotional involvement with the patient's life world. This extends the notion and practice of individual tailoring as selecting among predefined, generalised knowledge based on an initial mapping of the patients' knowledge. While the adaptions to individual tailoring could have been seen as inaccurate implementation, in-depth analyses discloses that the extended approach to individual tailoring is in fact what retains the programme's core principles in the implementation context.
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.