Comparison of Liaison and Staff Nurses in Discharge Referrals Of Postpartum Patients for Public Health Nursing Follow-Up

Mitchell, Alba; Berkel, Colleen Van; Adam, Valerie; Ciliska, Donna; Sheppard, Kim; Baumann, Andrea; Underwood, Jane; Walter, Stephen D.; Gafni, Amiram; Edwards, Nancy; Southwell, Doris

doi:10.1097/00006199-199307000-00010

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the aftercare programmes were applied to more acute patients or younger people, they might have proved more beneficial compared to the control group, as shown by others (Barkauskas 1983, Brootten et al . 1986, Mitchell et al . 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of aftercare on chronic patients and frail elderly patients when discharged from hospital: a systematic review

Bours

Ketelaars²,

Frederiks

et al. 1998

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review was an assessment of the efficacy of aftercare in chronic patients and the frail elderly when discharged from hospital, as regards quality of life, compliance, costs, medical consumption and quality of care. In pursuit of this goal, 17 publications on the effects of aftercare after discharge from hospital were examined. A systematic assessment of methodological quality by two blinded independent reviewers resulted in a consensus score (0-100 points), based on four categories: the study population, description of the interventions, measurement of the outcome and the analysis and presentation of the data. Only three of the 17 studies scored more than 50 points, indicating that most of the studies were of poor methodological quality. The most prevalent methodological problems were that co-interventions were not avoided, a placebo group was lacking, the assessment was not blinded and the analysis was not made on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The majority of the studies did not report clear beneficial effects in favour of the intervention group. The positive effects reported were limited to costs and quality of care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%