Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30975730›Full record

Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2019

Patient activation intervention to facilitate participation in recovery after total knee replacement (MIME): a cluster randomised cross-over trial.

Jo McDonall, Richard de Steiger, John Reynolds, Bernice Redley, Patricia M Livingston, Anastasia F Hutchinson, Mari Botti

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Usability and feasibility of multimedia interventions for engaging patients in their care in the context of acute recovery: A narrative review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jo McDonallFaculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia jo.mcdonall@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6696-6316
Richard de SteigerDepartment of Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1276-2040
John ReynoldsFaculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8825-8625
Bernice RedleyFaculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Safety Research, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2376-3989
Patricia M LivingstonFaculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6616-3839
Anastasia F HutchinsonFaculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Safety Research, Epworth Partnership, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0014-689X
Mari BottiFaculty of Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Safety Research, Epworth Partnership, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2782-0987
Deakin University · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient participation in care is a fundamental element of safe and high-quality healthcare with the potential to enhance health outcomes and improve patient satisfaction.

objectivesTo test the efficacy of a clinician-facilitated, bedside multimedia (

methodsUnmasked, cluster randomised, four-period cross-over trial with a simultaneous process evaluation within in a large private, not-for-profit, metropolitan teaching hospital. Statistical analyses used linear mixed models with random effects for wards, cohorts within wards and patients within cohorts and fixed effects for treatment and period.

results241 patients were recruited between March 2014 and June 2015. Patients were admitted to intervention (104) or control (137) clusters. Intervention group patients reported significantly lower mean pain intensity scores on postoperative day 3 (6.1 vs 7.1, 95% CI -1.94 to -0.08, p=0.04). The percentages of patients who reported severe pain (score ≥7) were 43.7% and 64.2% in the intervention and control groups, respectively (χ

conclusionThe clinician-facilitated,

trial registrationACTRN12614000340639 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/default.aspx).

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAgedAnalgesicsArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeCross-Over StudiesFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMultimediaPainPain MeasurementPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesAnalgesicscluster trialshealth services researchinformation technologypatient-centred care

Identifiers

PMID30975730
PMCPMC6860682
OpenAlexW2936512980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.