J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2022 Sep;52(9):572-585. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10614. Epub 2022 Jul 8.
To (1) describe the nature and content of the current literature on preoperative education programs for patients preparing for orthopaedic surgery, (2) assess the completeness of reporting program descriptions, and (3) report gaps within the literature.
Scoping review.
We searched the CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for studies that (1) addressed preoperative education in elective orthopaedic surgery or (2) provided descriptions or evaluations of a preoperative program, including the content or outcomes of the program.
Articles were included if they addressed preoperative patient education focused on an elective orthopaedic surgery and any of the (1) descriptions of an education program including any theoretical frameworks, content, or delivery, or (2) evaluations of the process of a preoperative educational program. Studies were excluded if they were treatment programs with the goal of resolving the problem occurring prior to surgery (eg, rehabilitation or pain management prior to surgery).
We used the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide to assess the completeness of reporting of the content of educational programs. Content was synthesized descriptively and by intervention mapping. The results informed of a draft operational definition of preoperative education that we refined based on expert consultation.
Forty-six articles were included. There was variation in study designs, target populations, and intervention content. Preoperative education was defined in 1 out of 5 studies. Thirteen studies used a platform of video-based modules to deliver their program; 3 studies implemented virtual platforms. Results from the TIDieR checklist indicated that 30% of studies tracked adherence to and fidelity of their programs. A definition and conceptual map indicated that the length of stay, functional abilities, patient knowledge, and satisfaction were expected benefits.
Poor reporting of content, rationale, and frameworks for preoperative programs in orthopedics may explain why systematic reviews have not found support for their value. Future trials must improve rigor in design and reporting. .
(1)描述当前关于准备接受骨科手术的患者术前教育计划的文献的性质和内容,(2)评估对计划描述的完整程度,以及(3)报告文献中的差距。
范围审查。
我们在 CINAHL、Embase、PubMed、Cochrane 综述、PsycINFO、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 数据库中搜索了以下研究:(1)涉及择期骨科手术术前教育的研究,或(2)提供了术前计划的描述或评估,包括计划的内容或结果。
如果研究针对择期骨科手术患者的术前患者教育,并包括以下任何内容,则纳入文章:(1)教育计划的描述,包括任何理论框架、内容或交付方式,或(2)对术前教育计划过程的评估。如果研究是针对术前发生的问题(例如,手术前的康复或疼痛管理)的治疗计划,则将其排除在外。
我们使用干预描述和复制 (TIDieR) 清单和指南来评估教育计划内容报告的完整性。内容通过干预映射进行描述性和综合。结果提供了术前教育的草案操作定义,我们根据专家咨询进行了改进。
纳入了 46 篇文章。研究设计、目标人群和干预内容存在差异。有 1 篇研究定义了术前教育。13 项研究使用基于视频模块的平台来提供他们的计划;3 项研究实施了虚拟平台。TIDieR 清单的结果表明,30%的研究跟踪了其计划的依从性和保真度。定义和概念图表明,预期的益处是住院时间、功能能力、患者知识和满意度。
骨科术前计划内容、理由和框架报告不佳,这可能解释了为什么系统评价没有发现支持其价值的证据。未来的试验必须提高设计和报告的严谨性。