Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41716954›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026

To sit or not to sit? A Danish mixed-methods study of a bedside sitting-intervention among cardiological patients.

Tobias Carl Højmark Mathiassen, Annette Mollerup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tobias Carl Højmark MathiassenDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, København, NV, Denmark.
Annette MollerupDepartment of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, København, NV, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective nurse-patient communication is a cornerstone of patient-centred care. Research indicates that when nurses sit during interactions, patients perceive communication as more attentive and respectful. However, the effect of a structured sitting intervention within cardiology settings remains underexplored. Objective: This study evaluated whether the presence of bedside stools influenced cardiology patients' perception of nurse presence, communication quality, and time spent in conversation. Methods: A mixed-methods quasi-experimental study was conducted in a Danish cardiology department. Two inpatient wards were assigned as experimental (n = 19) and control (n = 20) groups. Stools were placed in patient rooms in the experimental ward to facilitate seated communication, while the control ward followed usual care. Data was collected through patient interviews and a group interview with nurses. Quantitative data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and qualitative responses were thematically analysed. Results: Patients in the experimental ward perceived nurses as sitting more (mean = 1.5 vs. 0.2 times, p < 0.001) and spending longer time in conversation (mean = 9.32 vs. 5.15 minutes, p = 0.003). They also rated nurses as having more time to talk (mean = 3.42 vs. 2.25, p = 0.005). Although the intervention did not significantly affect satisfaction with communication (p = 0.771), qualitative findings revealed enhanced perceptions of presence, attentiveness, and calmness. Conclusion: The bedside sitting intervention improved patients' perception of time, presence, and nurse availability. The initiative was cost-effective, sustainable, and well received by staff, suggesting that seated communication may foster more meaningful and caring patient encounters.

Indexed as

BedsideCommunicationLow-costPatient-centred careQuality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID41716954
PMCPMC12914683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.