ArticleJournal of global health2025
Evidence-based nursing interventions in cognitive dysfunction among adults with brain injury: a quasi-experiment.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While evidence-based interventions are increasingly used in cognitive care, their effectiveness for patients with brain injury remains not well established. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of an evidence-based nursing intervention programme vs. conventional nursing care in patients with cognitive dysfunction following brain injury. Methods: We enrolled brain injury patients from two neurosurgical wards (A and B) of a Shanghai rehabilitation hospital (July 2023-January 2024) in a non-randomised controlled trial. Ward A implemented the evidence-based cognitive intervention programme, while ward B maintained routine care. The segregated ward design prevented cross-contamination between groups. Outcomes were measured at baseline, immediately after a two-week intervention (T1), and at a four-week follow-up (T2). We analysed primary (i.e. the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)) and secondary (i.e. activities of daily living (ADL) and cognitive knowledge scores) outcomes using generalised estimating equations (GEE) with terms for time, group, and their interaction. We set statistical significance at P < 0.05. Results: We enrolled 124 brain injury patients with cognitive dysfunction, with 117 completing the study (intervention n = 59; control n = 58; attrition = 5.6%). No significant differences were found between the groups at baseline. The GEE results showed significantly higher cognitive function improvements in the intervention group than the control group at both T1 (b = 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.76, 2.66; P < 0.001) and T2 (b = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.42, 4.00; P = 0.001). Results also showed a significantly greater increase in ADL (b = 4.93; 95% CI = 2.14, 7.72; P = 0.001) and caregivers' cognitive scores (b = 8.09; 95% CI = 2.78, 13.41; P = 0.003) at T1, with sustained increases at T2 in ADL (b = 5.46; 95% CI = 2.15, 8.77; P = 0.001) and caregivers' cognitive scores (b = 13.51; 95% CI = 6.76, 20.27; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The programme was effective in improving cognitive function and shows potential for clinical implementation and generalisation. A longer follow-up study is needed to evaluate its long-term effects on clinical outcomes. Registration: We prospectively registered this study with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration ID: ChiCTR2300072283).
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.