Rigorous, robust and systematic: Qualitative research and its contribution to burn care. An integrative review

Exploring what is important during burn recovery: a qualitative study investigating priorities of patients and healthcare professionals over time

OBJECTIVES

This qualitative study aimed to investigate: (1) priorities of patients and healthcare professionals during recovery from a burn injury, (2) how priorities change over time and (3) how priorities map to outcomes currently reported in burns research.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

A total of 53 patients and healthcare professionals were recruited from four National Health Service (NHS) burn services across England and Wales across England and Wales. Patient participants (n=32) included adults, adolescents and parents of paediatric patients, with a variety of burn injuries in terms of severity and cause of burn injury. Healthcare professionals (n=21) were NHS staff members involved in burn care and included professionals with a range of clinical experience and roles (eg, nurses, surgeons, occupational therapists, physiotherapist, administration).

RESULTS

Ten themes relating to priorities (outcomes) during recovery from a burn injury were identified for patients and professionals. Of those, six were identified for patients and professionals ('pain and discomfort', 'psychological well-being', 'healing', 'scarring', 'function', 'infection'), three were unique to professionals ('patient knowledge, understanding and support', 'sense of control', 'survival') and one was unique to patients ('uncertainty'). Results highlighted that importance of these priorities changes over time (eg, 'survival' was only a concern in the short term). Likewise, priorities differed between patients and professionals (eg, 'pain' was important to patients throughout their recovery, but not for professionals). Seven out of 10 themes overlapped with outcomes commonly assessed in burn research.

CONCLUSION

Professionals' and patients' priorities (important outcomes) change over time after burn injury and differ between those groups. Burn care research should consider measuring outcomes at different time points during the recovery from a burn injury to accurately reflect complexity of burn recovery.

Influential Factors in the Recovery Process of Burn Survivors in a Predominately Rural State: A Qualitative Study

Navigating the recovery journey following a burn injury can be challenging. Survivor stories can help define recovery constructs that can be incorporated into support programs. We undertook this study to determine themes of recovery in a predominately rural state. Eleven purposefully selected burn survivors were interviewed using a semi-structured format. Consensus coding of verbatim transcriptions was used to determine themes of successful recovery. Four support-specific themes were identified. These included: using active coping strategies, expressing altruism through helping others, finding meaning and acceptance, and the active seeking and use of support. These themes could be incorporated into support programming and would help guide future survivors through the recovery period.

Art therapy in pediatric burn care: A conceptual framework for clinical practice

Burn injuries are an unexpected traumatic event and can be physically and emotionally devastating for a child and their families. This article presents a conceptual framework for art therapy practice with pediatric burns, founded on the three stages of burn treatment- critical, acute, and rehabilitation. The framework is based on narrative synthesis of research on the psychosocial needs of children with burn injuries, art therapy literature on pediatric burn patients, as well as in medical settings. Based on the stages of burn recovery, and the role of other relevant stakeholders, the framework provides recommendations for clinical practice of art therapy with children sustaining burn injuries, their caregivers and siblings, and healthcare providers. Robust studies including art therapy as interventions are recommended to determine their effectiveness in addressing the specific psychosocial needs in different stages of pediatric burn care.

"More than Scabs and Stitches": An Interview Study of Burn Survivors' Perspectives on Treatment and Recovery

Sustaining a burn injury often results in a life-long recovery process. Survivors are impacted by changes in their mobility, appearance, and ability to carry out activities of daily living. In this study, we examined survivors' accounts of their treatment and recovery in order to identify specific factors that have had significant impacts on their well-being. With this knowledge, we may be better equipped to optimize the care of burn patients. We conducted inductive, thematic analysis on transcripts of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 11 burn survivors. Participants were purposefully selected for variability in age, gender, injury size and mechanism, participation in peer support, and rurality. Survivors reported varied perceptions of care quality and provider relationships. Ongoing issues with skin and mobility continued to impact their activities of daily living. Many survivors reported that they did not have a clear understanding or realistic expectations of the recovery process. Wound care was often described as overwhelming and provoked fear for many. Even years later, trauma from burn injury can continue to evolve, creating fears and impediments to daily living for survivors. To help patients understand the realistic course of recovery, providers should focus on communicating the nature of injury and anticipated recovery, developing protocols to better identify survivors facing barriers to care, and referring survivors for further support.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.