ArticleBMJ open2022
Understanding people's experiences of extrication while being trapped in motor vehicles: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychological care in acute and emergency medicine: a scoping review of support interventions by healthcare professionals.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Trapped and traumatised: a scoping review of the psychological sequelae of entrapment following motor vehicle collision.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Optimising the care of the trapped patient following a motor vehicle collision: A UK-Based Delphi consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Extrication following a motor vehicle collision: a consensus statement on behalf of The Faculty of Pre-hospital Care, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patient's experience of entrapment and subsequent extrication following a motor vehicle collision and identify their priorities in optimising this experience.
designSemistructured interviews exploring the experience of entrapment and extrication conducted at least 6 weeks following the event. Thematic analysis of interviews.
settingSingle air ambulance and spinal cord injury charity in the UK.
participants10 patients were recruited and consented; six air ambulance patients and two spinal cord injury charity patients attended the interview. 2 air ambulance patients declined to participate following consent due to the perceived potential for psychological sequelae.
resultsThe main theme across all participants was that of the importance of communication; successful communication to the trapped patient resulted in a sense of well-being and where communication failures occurred this led to distress. The data generated three key subthemes: 'on-scene communication', 'physical needs' and 'emotional needs'. Specific practices were identified that were of use to patients during entrapment and extrication.
conclusionsExtrication experience was improved by positive communication, companionship, explanations and planned postincident follow-up. Extrication experience was negatively affected by failures in communication, loss of autonomy, unmanaged pain, delayed communication with remote family and onlooker use of social media. Recommendations which will support a positive patient-centred extrication experience are the presence of an 'extrication buddy', the use of clear and accessible language, appropriate reassurance in relation to co-occupants, a supportive approach to communication with family and friends, the minimisation of onlooker photo/videography and the provision of planned (non-clinical) follow-up.
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.