Objective To develop and internally validate a prognostic model to predict chronic pain after a new episode of acute or subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain in patients presenting to physiotherapy primary care, emphasising modifiable biomedical, psychological and social factors. Design A prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up between January 2020 and March 2023. Setting 30 physiotherapy primary care practices. Participants Patients with a new presentation of non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain, with a duration lasting no longer than 12 weeks from onset. Baseline measures Candidate prognostic variables collected from participants included age and sex, neck pain symptoms, work-related factors, general factors, psychological and behavioural factors and the remaining factors: therapeutic relation and healthcare provider attitude. Outcome measures Pain intensity at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months on a Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after inclusion. An NPRS score of ≥3 at each time point was used to define chronic neck pain. Results 62 (10%) of the 603 participants developed chronic neck pain. The prognostic factors in the final model were sex, pain intensity, reported pain in different body regions, headache since and before the neck pain, posture during work, employment status, illness beliefs about pain identity and recovery, treatment beliefs, distress and self-efficacy. The model demonstrated an optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.83 and a corrected R2 of 0.24. Calibration was deemed acceptable to good, as indicated by the calibration curve. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a p-value of 0.7167, indicating a good model fit. Conclusion This model has the potential to obtain a valid prognosis for developing chronic pain after a new episode of acute and subacute non-specific idiopathic, non-traumatic neck pain. It includes mostly potentially modifiable factors for physiotherapy practice. External validation of this model is recommended.
LINK
Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of intensive care unit (ICU)–initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families on elements of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and/or PICS-family (PICS–F). Review method used: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis Sources: The authors searched in biomedical bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase (OVID), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and included studies written in English conducted up to October 8, 2020. Review methods: We included (non)randomised controlled trials focussing on ICU-initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families. Two authors conducted selection, quality assessment, and data extraction and synthesis independently. Outcomes were described using the three elements of PICS, which were categorised into (i) physical impairments (pulmonary, neuromuscular, and physical function), (ii) cognitive impairments (executive function, memory, attention, visuo-spatial and mental processing speed), and (iii) psychological health (anxiety, depression, acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression). Results: From the initially identified 5052 articles, five studies were included (i.e., two randomised controlled trials and three nonrandomised controlled trials) with varied transitional care interventions. Quality among the studies differs from moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from the studies shows no significant differences in favour of transitional care interventions on physical or psychological aspects of PICS-(F). One study with a nurse-led structured follow-up program showed a significant difference in physical function at 3 months. Conclusions: Our review revealed that there is a paucity of research about the effectiveness of transitional care interventions for ICU patients with PICS. All, except one of the identified studies, failed to show a significant effect on the elements of PICS. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to variety and scarcity of data. Prospero registration: CRD42020136589 (available via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020136589).
Purpose: The aims of this study were to investigate how a variety of research methods is commonly employed to study technology and practitioner cognition. User-interface issues with infusion pumps were selected as a case because of its relevance to patient safety. Methods: Starting from a Cognitive Systems Engineering perspective, we developed an Impact Flow Diagram showing the relationship of computer technology, cognition, practitioner behavior, and system failure in the area of medical infusion devices. We subsequently conducted a systematic literature review on user-interface issues with infusion pumps, categorized the studies in terms of methods employed, and noted the usability problems found with particular methods. Next, we assigned usability problems and related methods to the levels in the Impact Flow Diagram. Results: Most study methods used to find user interface issues with infusion pumps focused on observable behavior rather than on how artifacts shape cognition and collaboration. A concerted and theorydriven application of these methods when testing infusion pumps is lacking in the literature. Detailed analysis of one case study provided an illustration of how to apply the Impact Flow Diagram, as well as how the scope of analysis may be broadened to include organizational and regulatory factors. Conclusion: Research methods to uncover use problems with technology may be used in many ways, with many different foci. We advocate the adoption of an Impact Flow Diagram perspective rather than merely focusing on usability issues in isolation. Truly advancing patient safety requires the systematic adoption of a systems perspective viewing people and technology as an ensemble, also in the design of medical device technology.
