BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors, including diet, physical activity, smoking cessation, and stress management, are crucial for reducing the risk of recurrent cardiac events and promoting overall cardiovascular health. Despite their clinical significance, the experiences of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in adjusting to and maintaining these lifestyle changes after their first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain relatively unexplored, especially in China. This study aims to address this gap by exploring the experiences of patients with CHD in central China as they make adjustments to healthy lifestyles following their first PCI.

METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was designed. Eighteen participants from a regional teaching hospital in central China participated in the study conducted from 2022 to 2023. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews guided by semi-structured questions, resulting in five sub-themes and one main theme emerging from the thematic analysis.

RESULTS: Adjusting to a healthy lifestyle post-PCI was described as "moving forward despite obstacles", reflecting resilience and determination in overcoming challenges to improve health and well-being. The participants initially trusted their doctors' recommendations and became motivated by the positive effects of lifestyle changes and the desire to alleviate the burden of their loved ones. However, they also faced challenges related to Chinese traditional culture and other physical issues.

CONCLUSION: Adjustment to a healthy lifestyle is essential but challenging. Our findings highlight the influence of external and internal factors on behavioural changes and underscore the need for health professionals to understand and support patients' experiences to inspire and sustain their lifestyle adjustments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Introduction:The demand for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been steadily increasing along with the number of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in China. However, there is a lack of studies investigating health-related quality of life (HRQoL), self-efficacy, and depression among Chinese patients undergoing their first PCI. The aim of this study was to explore the association between depression, self-efficacy, and HRQoL among Chinese patients with CHD undergoing their first PCI.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, 212 Chinese patients with CHD who underwent their first PCI were recruited through convenience sampling from October 2019 to March 2020. HRQoL, self-efficacy, and depression were assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Cardiac Self-Efficacy Scale, and Short-Form Cardiac Depression Scale, respectively, along with the collection of patients' sociodemographic and clinical information.Results:Among the 212 participants, the average age was 59.82 years, and 145 (68.4%) were male. The average scores for self-efficacy, depression, and HRQoL were 33.49 (+/- 10.28), 16.14 (+/- 6.12), and 328.33 (+/- 62.55), respectively. Among the 212 patients who underwent PCI, 134 (63.21%) were found to have depression symptoms according to the cutoff score of 14. A higher body mass index, a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, fewer years of CHD diagnosis, the absence of symptoms of depression and greater self-efficacy were significantly positively associated with HRQoL. In total, these variables explained 37.2% of the variance in HRQoL.Conclusion:This study revealed that the HRQoL of patients in this group needs to receive more attention. A comprehensive secondary prevention intervention for CHD patients undergoing their first PCI should emphasize mitigating depression and positively influencing their self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND: In planned major surgery the duration of inpatient hospital care during the last decade has decreased because of a combination of different perioperative interventions. It is expected that patients can manage the needed pre- and postoperative self-care to a large extent on their own. This entails challenges to healthcare system to deliver appropriate information to patients in a safe and efficient manner. The aim of this study was therefore to describe healthcare workers' perceptions of how eHealth applications can support patients' self-care in relation to planned major surgery.

METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with sixteen healthcare workers from different disciplines. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using the phenomenography approach.

RESULTS: Healthcare workers perceived both positive aspects and challenges with eHealth applications for self-care. eHealth applications can work as an information source, affect patients' understanding of self-care, improve patients' participation in self-care, streamline communication with healthcare professionals and improve patient safety during the pre- and postoperative period. The challenges included perceptions of that eHealth applications may have negative impact on personal interaction in care. eHealth applications may not be useful to all patients because of lack of equipment or knowledge and may increase patients' suffering if physical visits are replaced by digital solutions.

CONCLUSIONS: This study improves our understanding of healthcare workers' perceptions of how the use of self-care eHealth applications can support patients in performing pre- and postoperative self-care for major surgery. Access to appropriate and personalized information and instructions can improve patients' understanding of self-care and enhance the participation and safety of those who can afford and handle digital tools. All these aspects must be considered in future digital development of eHealth applications to guarantee a person-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Before and after major surgery, access to information in a user-friendly way is a prerequisite for patients to feel confident in taking on the responsibility for their surgical preparation and recovery. Several e-health applications have been developed to support patients perioperatively. The aim of this review was to give an overview of e-health applications designed for self-care associated with surgery by providing a scoping overview of perspectives from providers and patients. METHODS: We searched the following data sources to identify peer-reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies published between 2015 and 2020: CINAHL, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Scopus. After identifying 960 titles, we screened 638 abstracts, of which 72 were screened in full text. Protocol register: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R3QND . RESULTS: We included 15 studies which met our inclusion criteria. Data from several surgical contexts revealed that the most common self-care actions in e-health applications were preoperative preparations and self-assessments of postoperative recovery. Motivational factors for self-care were information, combined with supportive reminders and messages, and chat features. Although there was great variance in research designs and technical solutions, a willingness to engage with and adhere to e-health seemed to increase patients' self-care activities and thereby accelerate return to work and normal activities. In addition, the need for physical visits seemed to decrease. Even though age groups were not primarily studied, the included studies showed that adult patients of any age engaged in surgical self-care supported by e-health. The providers' perspectives were not found. CONCLUSIONS: E-health applications supporting perioperative self-care indicated a positive impact on recovery. However, experiences of healthcare professionals delivering e-health associated with surgery are missing. Additionally, studies based on patients' perspectives regarding willingness, adherence, and motivation for self-care supported by e-health are sparse. A need for studies examining the supporting role of e-health for self-care in the surgical context is therefore needed.

Background:

Attention to factors that may affect patients’ ability to experience enhanced recovery after surgery is essential in planning for postoperative care.

Aims:

To create models of predefined pre,- peri-, and postoperative variables in order to analyze their impact on patients’ physical recovery on postoperative days 1 and 2 after major orthopedic and general surgery.

Design:

An exploratory design with repeated measures was used, including 479 patients who had undergone orthopedic (289) or general surgery (190) at three hospitals.

Methods:

Pain, nausea, and level of physical ability were measured preoperatively and on postoperative days 1 and 2 by using the Numerical Rating Scale and items from the Postoperative Recovery Profile. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the impact of the predefined variables on patients’ physical recovery.

Results:

The orthopedic group contained significantly more women and significantly more patients with pain and opioid use. Although the models showed good fit, “traditional” preoperative (pain, nausea, physical abilities, chronic pain, opioid use) and perioperative variables (anesthesia, length of surgery) constituted few (orthopedic) or no (general surgery) predictive properties for physical recovery. Postoperative average pain intensity, average nausea intensity, and physical ability explained physical recovery on day 1, and physical recovery on day 1 predicted physical recovery on day 2.

Conclusions:

“Traditional” predictors had little effect on patients’ postoperative physical recovery, while associations with common postoperative symptoms were shown. Further research is needed to explore additional variables affecting early physical recovery and to understand how soon patients are physically ready to return home. 

Aim:

To determine the associations of patients' documented self-rated pain with self-rated early postoperative physical recovery.

Design:

Observational with repeated measures.

Methods:

General and orthopaedic inpatients (N = 479) were during the period 2012–2015 screened for pain. Individual daily median pain scores at rest and during activity were based on 4–9 self-ratings on postoperative days 1 and 2, using the Numeric Rating Scale. Nine items reflecting physical recovery from the “Postoperative Recovery Profile” were used in a questionnaire.

Results:

Associations between median pain scores on postoperative day 1 and physical recovery (fatigue, sleeping difficulties, bladder function, mobilization, muscle weakness and personal hygiene) the same day were found. Additionally, associations were found between median pain scores on day 1 and physical recovery (fatigue, sleeping difficulties, mobilization and muscle weakness) on day 2.

Aim: To compare different levels of self-rated average nausea intensity with early physical recovery and determine if nausea can reflect recovery in patients undergoing general or orthopaedic surgery.

Background: Nausea has been found to influence postoperative physical recovery. Despite the incidence of nausea in postoperative care, there is a knowledge gap about the possibility of using average nausea intensity to reflect recovery, motivating further investigation.

Design: An observational design with repeated measures.

Methods: General and orthopaedic patients answered a questionnaire (October 2012–January 2015) about nausea and impact on recovery on postoperative days 1 (N = 479) and 2 (N = 441). Questions about average nausea intensity at rest and during activity were answered based on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) (0–10). Impact on recovery was evaluated using three dimensions from the postoperative recovery profile tool.

Results: About one-fifth of the patients reported nausea intensity as moderate to severe on days 1 and 2. Nausea intensity was associated with eight of nine aspects of recovery on postoperative day 1. Nausea intensity on day 1 also reflected four of nine aspects of recovery on day 2. About reflecting physical recovery, the association was strongest between nausea intensity and appetite changes.

Conclusions: As postoperative nausea is common, regular assessments by healthcare professionals are needed. Assessment of nausea is of importance since it reflects physical recovery. This also shows the importance of treating nausea without delay. Using the NRS to measure nausea intensity is a simple method that is easy to use in clinic. 

Aim and objectives: To validate the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for postoperative nausea assessments, and determine whether a central tendency, median, based on patients’ self-rated nausea is a clinically applicable daily measure to describe patients’ nausea after major surgery.

Background: Postoperative nausea causes major discomfort, risks for complications and prolonged hospital stays. The NRS is recommended for the assessment of pain but is little explored for assessing nausea.

Design: A repeated measure design was carried out on patients who had undergone major surgery in three Swedish hospitals.

Methods: Nonparametric statistical methods were used to analyse (a) associations between the NRS and a verbal scale (no, mild, moderate and severe) and (b) to analyse associations between Measure 1 (nausea scores postoperative Day 1) and Measure 2 (retrospective nausea scores at rest and during activity, postoperative Day 2). Reporting of this research adheres to the Strobe Guidelines.

Results: The mean age of the 479 patients (44% women) in the sample was 65 years (range, 22–93 years). Self-assessed nausea scores from the NRS and the verbal scale correlated well (rS pearman= 0.79). Correlation between nausea at rest and nausea during activity was rS pearman= 0.81. The calculated median scores (Measure 1) showed only moderate correlations with retrospective nausea scores (Measure 2); 4–9 ratings, rS pearman= 0.41; 6–9 ratings, rS pearman= 0.54.

Conclusions: Numeric Rating Scale scores showed strong associations with a verbal scale; therefore, the NRS seems to be a valid tool to measure nausea intensity. The quality of daily summarised median nausea scores needs to be further explored before clinical use.

Relevance to clinical practice: The use of the NRS in assessments of nausea in postoperative care will facilitate communication between patients and health care professionals regarding nausea intensity. When documenting nausea, it seems unnecessary to distinguish nausea at rest from nausea during activity.

Aim: To compare different levels of self-rated pain and determine if they predict anticipated early physical recovery in patients undergoing general and orthopaedic surgery.

Background: Previous research has indicated that average self-rated pain reflects patients' ability to recover the same day. However, there is a knowledge gap about the feasibility of using average pain ratings to predict patients' physical recovery for the next day.

Design: Descriptive, quantitative repeated measures.

Methods: General and orthopaedic inpatients (n = 479) completed a questionnaire (October 2012-January 2015) about pain and recovery. Average pain intensity at rest and during activity was based on the Numeric Rating Scale and divided into three levels (0-3, 4-6, 7-10). Three out of five dimensions from the tool "Postoperative Recovery Profile" were used. Because few suffered severe pain, general and orthopaedic patients were analysed together.

Results: Binary logistic regression analysis showed that average pain intensity postoperative day 1 significantly predicted the impact on recovery day 2, except nausea, gastrointestinal function and bladder function when pain at rest and also nausea, appetite changes, and bladder function when pain during activity. High pain ratings (NRS 7-10) demonstrated to be a better predictor for recovery compared with moderate ratings (NRS 4-6), day 2, as it significantly predicted more items in recovery.

Conclusion: Pain intensity reflected general and orthopaedic patients' physical recovery postoperative day 1 and predicted recovery for day 2. By monitoring patients' pain and impact on recovery, patients' need for support becomes visible which is valuable during hospital stays.