Observational studyPloS one2026
A longitudinal comparison of symptom-distress and person-centeredness between a fast-track programme for cardiac surgery and conventional care.
Observational study in PloS one, 2026. 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
AIM AND
designImpaired recovery in the post-operative phase after cardiac surgery predicts long-term recovery, making it important to identify and treat symptoms immediately. A fast-track programme after cardiac surgery was implemented. When developing such programmes, the patients' perspective of perioperative care is of major importance. This is a non-randomized longitudinal observational study in which symptom distress, perceived person-centeredness and pain level were prospectively compared after cardiac surgery. The aim of this non-randomized longitudinal observational study is to prospectively compare symptom-distress, perceived person-centeredness and pain level after cardiac surgery between a fast-track group and those undergoing conventional postoperative care.
methodsSymptom distress was explored and compared between a fast-track group and those undergoing conventional postoperative care. A total of 149 participants, 75% men and 25% women, with a mean age of 67 years (SD 9.9 years), were included. The control group comprised 117 patients and the fast-track group 31. Symptom distress was assessed by the Post-Operative Recovery Profile Instrument, person-centeredness by the Being Taken Seriously Questionnaire, while a Numerical Rating Scale was employed to measure self-rated pain.
resultsRegarding symptom distress, the control group felt significantly (p = .041) more restricted in physical activity in the thoracic intensive care unit (TICU) compared to the fast-track group. However, no differences in symptom distress between the groups were reported in the surgical ward. Longitudinally, an increase in symptom distress was found in the TICU, followed by improvements at the surgical ward. The fast-track group demonstrated lower pain ratings at all time points compared to the control group. The pain intensity score was relatively high during the first six hours after extubation. There was no difference between the control group and the fast-track group regarding their experiences of receiving person-centred care at either of the two time points.
conclusionsA fast-track programme is equivalent to conventional care in terms of perceived symptom-distress and person-centeredness and also reduces the duration of ICU care. IMPACT AND PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Detailed information regarding symptom distress could be used as an evidence-based foundation for symptom management support. The results contribute to an understanding of expected symptom patterns during cardiac surgery, which might increase self-efficacy when used to inform and educate patients perioperatively.
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.