ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Follow-up care experience of patients with invasive meningococcal disease and their family caregivers: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical guidelines recommend systematic follow-up of patients surviving invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) to assess sequelae. However, little is known about survivors and family caregivers' experiences of the follow-up care. Study sought to explore IMD survivors' and their family caregivers' experiences after hospitalization for IMD and to identify unmet needs.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and family caregivers, identified through hospitals database. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and subject to a thematic analysis. NVivo software was used for data management and analysis.
resultsEight IMD survivors and 14 family caregivers were interviewed. Three themes were identified from the data: (1) perception of patient and family caregiver on follow-up after IMD and role of healthcare professionals; (2) access to care and support; (3) relationship with healthcare professionals. Although most were satisfied with follow-up care after IMD, suggestions for improving the healthcare pathway were made relating information on potential sequelae and follow-up care, coordination, and access to psychological support.
conclusionsThis study confirms the need for more structured follow-up care for patients suffering from IMD and their families which is currently limited and focused on physical recovery. Optimal follow-up should aim to provide sufficient information, emotional support and logistical support for patient and family caregivers.
trial registrationEthics Committee of University of Lyon, France (ref: 2022-06-23-002).
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.