Trial reportBMJ open2024
Effectiveness of a nurse-led coaching in self-care intervention for elderly undergoing total laryngectomy: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led coaching in self-care (SC) interventions for elderly patients undergoing total laryngectomy (TL) using multidimensional parameters.
designThis was a double-arm randomised, single-centre trial that met the requirements of the CONSORT statement.
settingHead and neck department in a tertiary A-level hospital.
interventionElderly patients scheduled for TL were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=24) or the intervention group (n=23). Patients in the control group received routine nursing care during hospitalisation and, subsequently, at home after discharge, received conventional family care without the regular supervision of nurses. Patients in the intervention group received a series of SC interventions led by nurses during hospitalisation and discharge and implemented SC practice using the home SC manual (SC knowledge and SC diary), nurses regularly supervised and evaluated the SC effect. The primary outcome was the SC ability. Secondary outcomes were self- efficacy, quality of life (QoL) and nutritional status.
resultsThe SC intervention improved the SC ability, self-efficacy, QoL and nutritional status scores of patients in the intervention group compared with that of patients in the control group (p<0.01). The outcomes showed that the intervention had a significant effect on SC ability, self-efficacy and QoL scores, with both the main effects of time and intervention, as well as their interaction being significant (p<0.05). Nutritional status, as assessed using the PG-SGA, was better in the intervention group than in the control group (p<0.001). No adverse events (AEs) were observed in either group.
conclusionNurse-led SC intervention for elderly patients with TL is an effective strategy that can bring multidimensional benefits, including higher self-efficacy, stronger SC ability to actively solve health problems, better QoL and nutritional status, as well as shorter hospital stays. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100043731.
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.