ArticlePloS one2023
Is massage a legitimate part of nursing care? A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Massage therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology international · 2025Review
- Massage Therapy Utilization in Pediatric Acute Burns: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe use of massage therapy has received increased attention in the treatment of chronic pain. However, barriers can hinder its use in nursing care. This study uses a qualitative methodology to explore professionals' experiences regarding touch massage (TM) and identify barriers and facilitators for the implementation of this intervention. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is part of a larger research program aimed at investigating the impact of TM on the experiences of patients with chronic pain hospitalized in two units of an internal medicine rehabilitation ward. Health care professionals (HCPs) were trained either to provide TM or to use of a massage-machine device according to their units. At the end of the trial, two focus groups were conducted with HCPs from each unit who took part in the training and agreed to discuss their experience: 10 caregivers from the TM group and 6 from the machine group. The focus group discussions were tape-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using thematic content analysis.
resultsFive themes emerged from thematic content analysis: perceived impact on patients, HCPs' affective and cognitive experiences, patient-professionals relationships, organizational tensions, and conceptual tensions. Overall, the HCPs reported better general outcomes with TM than with the machine. They described positive effects on patients, HCPs, and their relationships. Regarding interventions' implementation, the HCPs reported organizational barriers such as patients' case complexity, work overload, and lack of time. Conceptual barriers such as ambivalence around the legitimacy of TM in nursing care were reported. TM was often described as a pleasure care that was considered a complementary approach and was overlooked despite its perceived benefits.
conclusionDespite the perceived benefits of TM reported by the HCPs, ambivalence arose around the legitimacy of this intervention. This result emphasizes the importance of changing HCPs' attitudes regarding a given intervention to facilitate its implementation.
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.