FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

What drives clinic follow-up after traumatic spinal injury? An observational cohort study from Tanzania

Por: Ikwuegbuenyi · C. A. · Woodfield · J. · Sabas · R. R. · Inzerillo · S. · Willett · N. · Cadieux · M. · Zuckerman · S. L. · Waterkeyn · F. · Mangat · H. S. · Shabani · H. K. · Härtl · R.
Objectives

To evaluate factors associated with clinic follow-up after traumatic spinal injury (TSI) in Tanzania, focusing on demographic, injury-related and hospital variables. We hypothesised that socioeconomic and injury-specific factors would predict follow-up adherence.

Design

Retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary government referral centre for neurosurgery and orthopaedics in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Participants

443 adults with TSI admitted between September 2016 and October 2021. Inclusion criteria included survival to discharge and availability of the discharge date. Patients with missing data were excluded.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Primary outcomes were any clinic follow-up and 1-year follow-up post-discharge. Secondary outcome was time to loss of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with follow-up, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis assessed follow-up duration.

Results

Of 443 patients (85.8% male, median age 34 years), 52.4% returned for follow-up. Independent factors associated with return included private insurance (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.69, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45, p=0.005), involvement in a road traffic accident (aOR 2.15, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.83, p=0.009), lumbar injuries (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.00, p=0.004), neurological improvement at discharge (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.72 to 7.64, p=0.001) and hospital stays shorter than 24 days (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47, p=0.022). Among those who returned, only 25.4% completed 1 year of follow-up. Predictors of 1-year follow-up included being female (aOR 4.87, 95% CI 2.31 to 10.56, p

Conclusion

Follow-up after TSI in this low- and middle-income country setting is poor, with fewer than one in eight patients completing 1 year. Private insurance, injury mechanism, neurological improvement and female sex predicted follow-up. Targeted efforts are needed to improve long-term care engagement.

Pain management interventions of the non‐communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review

Abstract

Aim

The utility and uptake of pain management interventions across intensive care settings is inconsistent. A rapid realist review was conducted to synthesise the evidence for the purpose of theory building and refinement.

Design

A five-step iterative process was employed to develop project scope/ research questions, collate evidence, appraise literature, synthesise evidence and interpret information from data sources.

Methods

Realist synthesis method was employed to systematically review literature for developing a programme theory.

Data Sources

Initial searches were undertaken in three electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL and OVID. The review was supplemented with key articles from bibliographic search of identified articles. The first 200 hits from Google Scholar were screened.

Results

Three action-oriented themes emerged as integral to successful implementation of pain management interventions. These included health facility actions, unit/team leader actions and individual nurses' actions.

Conclusion

Pain assessment interventions are influenced by a constellation of factors which trigger mechanisms yielding effective implementation outcomes.

Implications

The results have implications on policy makers, health organisations, nursing teams and nurses concerned with optimising the successful implementation of pain management interventions.

Impact

The review enabled formation of a programme theory concerned with explaining how to effectively implement pain management interventions in intensive care.

Reporting Method

This review was informed by RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis.

Public Contribution

No patient or public contribution.

The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework.

10.17605/OSF.IO/J7AEZ

❌