Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32829518›Full record

SynthesisResearch in nursing & health2020

Optimizing patients' functional status during daily nursing care interventions: A systematic review.

Carolien C J M M Verstraten, Silke F Metzelthin, Lisette Schoonhoven, Marieke J Schuurmans, Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Research in nursing & health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Function focused care in hospital: A mixed-method feasibility study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2021
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carolien C J M M VerstratenDepartment of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6002-9153
Silke F MetzelthinDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Lisette SchoonhovenDepartment of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7129-3766
Marieke J SchuurmansEducation Center, UMC Utrecht Academy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Janneke M de Man-van GinkelDepartment of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients often experience a functional decline due to physical inactivity during illness. Nurses can influence the physical activity of patients while assisting them with activities of daily living. The purpose of this study was to identify effective interventions that are embedded in daily nursing care (irrespective of care setting) that aim to optimize the functional status of patients by increasing their physical activity. A systematic review was performed and reported following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched for studies from January 2002 to March 2019. The critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute were used to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. Study characteristics, intervention key components, and reported effects of included studies were extracted, summarized narratively, and compared. Twenty studies, evaluating nine different interventions were included. In these interventions, eight key components were identified. Four components were included in all six interventions with a positive effect on mobility, physical activity, or functional status. These components were: assessment of patient's functionality; goal setting with the patient; establishment of an individualized plan; and engagement of patients in physical and daily activity. The effects were limited due to the risk of bias in the studies, small sample sizes, limited clinical meaning of the effects, and variability of the adherence to the interventions. Multicomponent interventions were the most promising to enhance the functional status of patients. Future research should evaluate these interventions using research methods aiming at producing more rigorous evidence.

Indexed as

Functional StatusSedentary BehaviorActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overExerciseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsSelf Careactivities of daily livingfunctional statusnursing interventionsphysical activitysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32829518
PMCPMC7540410
OpenAlexW3081381184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.