住院病人对急诊非药物干预措施的满意度:系统回顾。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2024-10-27 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S485369
Shaherah Yousef Andargeery, Abdullah Ahmed Almalki, Nada Aljohani, Hanan Alyami, Abdulrhman Alhagbani
{"title":"住院病人对急诊非药物干预措施的满意度:系统回顾。","authors":"Shaherah Yousef Andargeery, Abdullah Ahmed Almalki, Nada Aljohani, Hanan Alyami, Abdulrhman Alhagbani","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S485369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many patients experience stress and dissatisfaction when they are admitted to acute settings, where they receive short-term and active care for severe injuries, illnesses, or surgeries. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of healthcare quality that affects patient outcomes, service delivery, and safety.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aimed at systematically mapping and summarizing the evidence on non-pharmacological interventions that targeted patient satisfaction in inpatient acute settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patients' satisfaction and targeting inpatients between the ages of 19 and 65 years old; (2) studies written in English and published in the last 10 years, starting from 2017. The search results were imported and screened for eligibility on Covidence. The data was then extracted, using a tool entered in Covidence's Extraction 2.0. The extraction tool included domains on both intervention impact and delivery processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Randomized control trials represented the most among the group; seven studies were included given that the others were quasi-experimental studies. Those studies were conducted on the different types of services offered in acute care departments. These studies did not use a standardized questionnaire to evaluate their respective trial outcomes or to implement various adapted or adopted modules of intervention. Of note, the intervention was effective in enhancing patient satisfaction in only some of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Different types of intervention modules have been effective in improving acute care patient satisfaction. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention among all patients in different acute care departments at the same time.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"18 ","pages":"2169-2185"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526729/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inpatient Satisfaction on Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Settings: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Shaherah Yousef Andargeery, Abdullah Ahmed Almalki, Nada Aljohani, Hanan Alyami, Abdulrhman Alhagbani\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PPA.S485369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many patients experience stress and dissatisfaction when they are admitted to acute settings, where they receive short-term and active care for severe injuries, illnesses, or surgeries. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of healthcare quality that affects patient outcomes, service delivery, and safety.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review aimed at systematically mapping and summarizing the evidence on non-pharmacological interventions that targeted patient satisfaction in inpatient acute settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patients' satisfaction and targeting inpatients between the ages of 19 and 65 years old; (2) studies written in English and published in the last 10 years, starting from 2017. The search results were imported and screened for eligibility on Covidence. The data was then extracted, using a tool entered in Covidence's Extraction 2.0. The extraction tool included domains on both intervention impact and delivery processes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Randomized control trials represented the most among the group; seven studies were included given that the others were quasi-experimental studies. Those studies were conducted on the different types of services offered in acute care departments. These studies did not use a standardized questionnaire to evaluate their respective trial outcomes or to implement various adapted or adopted modules of intervention. Of note, the intervention was effective in enhancing patient satisfaction in only some of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Different types of intervention modules have been effective in improving acute care patient satisfaction. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention among all patients in different acute care departments at the same time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"2169-2185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526729/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S485369\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S485369","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多患者在急诊住院时都会感到压力和不满,因为他们在急诊接受的是重伤、重病或手术后的短期积极治疗。患者满意度是医疗质量的一个关键指标,它影响着患者的治疗效果、服务提供和安全性:本综述旨在系统地梳理和总结针对急诊住院患者满意度的非药物干预措施的证据:方法:检索了三个电子数据库,包括 PubMed、EBSCO 和 ScienceDirect。纳入标准为(1) 有关提高患者满意度的非药物干预措施的研究,且以 19 岁至 65 岁的住院患者为对象;(2) 以英语撰写,且自 2017 年起在过去 10 年中发表的研究。在 Covidence 上导入搜索结果并进行资格筛选。然后使用 Covidence Extraction 2.0 中输入的工具提取数据。提取工具包括干预效果和实施过程两个领域:共有 11 篇文章符合纳入标准。其中随机对照试验最多;鉴于其他研究都是准实验研究,因此纳入了 7 项研究。这些研究针对急诊科提供的不同类型的服务。这些研究没有使用标准化问卷来评估各自的试验结果,也没有实施各种经过调整或采用的干预模块。值得注意的是,仅在部分研究中,干预措施能有效提高患者满意度:结论:不同类型的干预模块在提高急诊患者满意度方面效果显著。结论:不同类型的干预模块可有效提高急症护理患者的满意度,但仍需进一步研究,以评估在不同急症护理部门同时对所有患者进行干预的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inpatient Satisfaction on Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Acute Settings: A Systematic Review.

Background: Many patients experience stress and dissatisfaction when they are admitted to acute settings, where they receive short-term and active care for severe injuries, illnesses, or surgeries. Patient satisfaction is a key indicator of healthcare quality that affects patient outcomes, service delivery, and safety.

Objective: This review aimed at systematically mapping and summarizing the evidence on non-pharmacological interventions that targeted patient satisfaction in inpatient acute settings.

Methods: Three electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect. The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patients' satisfaction and targeting inpatients between the ages of 19 and 65 years old; (2) studies written in English and published in the last 10 years, starting from 2017. The search results were imported and screened for eligibility on Covidence. The data was then extracted, using a tool entered in Covidence's Extraction 2.0. The extraction tool included domains on both intervention impact and delivery processes.

Results: A total of 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. Randomized control trials represented the most among the group; seven studies were included given that the others were quasi-experimental studies. Those studies were conducted on the different types of services offered in acute care departments. These studies did not use a standardized questionnaire to evaluate their respective trial outcomes or to implement various adapted or adopted modules of intervention. Of note, the intervention was effective in enhancing patient satisfaction in only some of the studies.

Conclusion: Different types of intervention modules have been effective in improving acute care patient satisfaction. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention among all patients in different acute care departments at the same time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信