Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733182›Full record

ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2022

Evaluating a pre-surgical health optimisation programme: a feasibility study.

Joanna McLaughlin, Lauren J Scott, Lucie Owens, Hugh McLeod, Carlos Sillero-Rejon, Rebecca Reynolds, Amanda Owen-Smith, Elizabeth M Hill, Russell Jago, Jenny L Donovan and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Joanna McLaughlinPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Joanna.Mclaughlin@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9921-4698
Lauren J ScottPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucie OwensNHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Clinical Commissioning Groups, Chippenham, UK.
Hugh McLeodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Carlos Sillero-RejonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rebecca ReynoldsBath and North East Somerset Council, Bath, UK.
Amanda Owen-SmithPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Elizabeth M HillPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Russell JagoNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Jenny L DonovanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sabi RedwoodPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ruth KippingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth optimisation programmes are increasingly popular and aim to support patients to lose weight or stop smoking ahead of surgery, yet there is little published evidence about their impact. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of evaluating a programme introduced by a National Health Service (NHS) clinical commissioning group offering support to smokers/obese patients in an extra 3 months prior to the elective hip/knee surgery pathway.

methodsFeasibility study mapping routinely collected data sources, availability and completeness for 502 patients referred to the hip/knee pathway in February-July 2018.

resultsData collation across seven sources was complex. Data completeness for smoking and ethnicity was poor. While 37% (184) of patients were eligible for health optimisation, only 28% of this comparatively deprived patient group accepted referral to the support offered. Patients who accepted referral to support and completed the programme had a larger median reduction in BMI than those who did not accept referral (- 1.8 BMI points vs. - 0.5). Forty-nine per cent of patients who accepted support were subsequently referred to surgery, compared to 61% who did not accept referral to support.

conclusionsUse of routinely collected data to evaluate health optimisation programmes is feasible though demanding. Indications of the positive effects of health optimisation interventions from this study and existing literature suggest that the challenge of programme evaluation should be prioritised; longer-term evaluation of costs and outcomes is warranted to inform health optimisation policy development.

Indexed as

Elective surgeryHealth optimisationObesityPrehabilitationSmoking

Identifiers

PMID35733182
PMCPMC9219203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.