ArticleBMC health services research2020
The experiences of individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and their family during post-injury care in non-specialised and specialised units in UK.
Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bearing the Burdens of Medical Uncertainty.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Behavioral-Emotional Regulation Questionnaire in Peruvian Adults (BERQ-PA).Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- University Students' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Cervical Spine Health.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Article
- Healthcare Experience of People with Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Phenomenological Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023Article
- Deglutition and the Regulation of the Swallow Motor Pattern.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023 · on this mapReview
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals with acute cervical spinal cord injury require specialised interventions to ensure optimal clinical outcomes especially for respiratory, swallowing and communication impairments. This study explores the experiences of post-injury care for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury and their family members during admissions in specialised and non-specialised units in the United Kingdom.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were undertaken with individuals with a cervical spinal cord injury and their family member, focussing on the experience of care across units. Eight people with spinal cord injury levels from C2 to C6, were interviewed in their current care settings. Six participants had family members present to support them. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed with data inputted into NVivo for thematic analysis.
resultsThe study identified six themes from the participant interviews that highlighted different experiences of care in non-specialised and specialised settings. A number of these were related to challenges with the system, whilst others were about the personal journey of recovery. The themes were titled as: adjustment, transitions, "the golden opportunity", "when you can't eat", communication, and "in the hands of the nurses and doctors".
conclusionsWhilst participants reported being well cared for in non-specialised units, they felt that they did not receive specialist care and this delayed their rehabilitation. Participants were dependent on healthcare professionals for information and care and at times lost hope for recovery. Staff in non-specialised units require training and guidance to help provide support for those with dysphagia and communication difficulties, as well as reassurance to patients and families whilst they wait for transfer to specialised units.
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.