| 1. |
- Havelin, LI, et al.
(författare)
-
A scandinavian experience of register collaboration:The Nordic Arthoplasty Register Association (NARA).
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. - 1535-1386. ; 93(suppl) E, s. 13-19
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The Nordic (Scandinavian) countries have had working arthroplasty registers for several years. However, the small numbers of inhabitants and the conformity within each country with respect to preferred prosthesis brands and techniques have limited register research. Methods: A collaboration called NARA (Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association) was started in 2007, resulting in a common database for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden with regard to hip replacements in 2008 and primary knee replacements in 2009. Finland joined the project in 2010. A code set was defined for the parameters that all registers had in common, and data were re-coded, within each national register, according to the common definitions. After de-identification of the patients, the anonymous data were merged into a common database. The first study based on this common database included 280,201 hip arthroplasties and the second, 151,814 knee arthroplasties. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multiple regression analyses, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, were used to calculate prosthesis survival, with any revision as the end point. In later studies, specific reasons for revision were also used as end points. Results: We found differences among the countries concerning patient demographics, preferred surgical approaches, fixation methods, and prosthesis brands. Prosthesis survival was best in Sweden, where cement implant fixation was used more commonly than it was in the other countries. Conclusions: As the comparison of national results was one of the main initial aims of this collaboration, only parameters and data that all three registers could deliver were included in the database. Compared with each separate register, this combined register resulted in reduced numbers of parameters and details. In future collaborations of registers with a focus on comparing the performances of prostheses and articulations, we should probably include only the data needed specifically for the predetermined purposes, from registers that can deliver these data, rather than compiling all data from all registers that are willing to participate.
|
|
| 2. |
- Makela, K. T., et al.
(författare)
-
Countrywise results of total hip replacement An analysis of 438,733 hips based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Acta Orthopaedica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1745-3674 .- 1745-3682. ; 85:2, s. 107-116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose An earlier Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) report on 280,201 total hip replacements (THRs) based on data from 1995-2006, from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, was published in 2009. The present study assessed THR survival according to country, based on the NARA database with the Finnish data included. Material and methods 438,733 THRs performed during the period 1995-2011 in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, was used to analyze implant survival with revision for any reason as endpoint. Results The 15-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for all THRs was 86% (CI: 85.7-86.9) in Denmark, 88% (CI: 87.6-88.3) in Sweden, 87% (CI: 86.4-87.4) in Norway, and 84% (CI: 82.9-84.1) in Finland. Revision risk for all THRs was less in Sweden than in the 3 other countries during the first 5 years. However, revision risk for uncemented THR was less in Denmark than in Sweden during the sixth (HR = 0.53, CI: 0.34-0.82), seventh (HR = 0.60, CI: 0.37-0.97), and ninth (HR = 0.59, CI: 0.36-0.98) year of follow-up. Interpretation The differences in THR survival rates were considerable, with inferior results in Finland. Brand-level comparison of THRs in Nordic countries will be required.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Roysland, I. O., et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring the information needs of patients with unexplained chest pain
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Patient Preference and Adherence. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1177-889X. ; 7, s. 915-923
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Unexplained chest pain is a common condition. Despite negative findings, a large number of these patients will continue to suffer from chest pain after being investigated at cardiac outpatient clinics. Unexplained chest pain covers many possible complaints, and diagnosing a single cause for a patient's pain is often described as difficult, as there are a number of possible factors that can contribute to the condition. For health professionals to meet patients' expectations, they must know more about the information needs of patients with unexplained chest pain. The aim of this study was to describe information needs among patients with unexplained chest pain and how those needs were met by health professionals during medical consultations. Methods: A qualitative design was used. Data were collected by means of seven individual interviews with four women and three men, aged 21-62 years. The interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Results: The results are described in two subthemes, ie, "experiencing lack of focus on individual problems" and "experiencing unanswered questions". These were further abstracted under the main theme "experiencing unmet information needs". Conclusion: Existing models of consultations should be complemented to include a person-centered approach to meeting patients' beliefs, perceptions, and expressions of feelings related to experiencing unexplained chest pain. This is in line with a biopsychosocial model with active patient participation, shared decision-making, and a multidisciplinary approach. Such an approach is directly within the domain of nursing, and aims to take into account patient experience.
|
|
