IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i3-4p421-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expectations and experiences of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair patients: a mixed methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer M Tocher

Abstract

Aims and objectives To establish what patients' expectations of postoperative pain were when undergoing open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. A review of the relevant literature highlighted the fact that there had been no such studies conducted within a similar such homogenous group. Therefore, this study aimed to explore pain expectations prospectively and then compare these with the patients' actual experiences. Background It has long been established that high levels of satisfaction with pain management are very often reported in patients despite suffering from severe to moderate levels of pain. The reasons for these high satisfaction levels are not always as clear, although it is suggested that patients have an expectation of postoperative pain. Design The study set out to establish what expectations of pain patients had and the factors that might influence them within the abdominal aortic aneurysm subject group. A mixed methods approach was used. Method Pain expectations were gathered preoperatively using a Likert scale of pain scoring. These were then compared with the recorded postoperative pain scores. This was followed by a semi‐structured interview. Results The study illustrated that patients expected to have postoperative pain as a natural consequence of their operations. Patients appeared to draw upon their previous experiences. Pain expectation levels were statistically significant, 60% of patients expected to have pain postoperatively. Conclusion This study demonstrated that patients expect to have postoperative pain. Such expectations might influence the individual's relationship and experience of their postoperative management. Relevance to clinical practice The study highlights the need for nurses to evaluate the preoperative information given to patients and to listen to expectations they voice. Patient expectations of pain are sometimes that they expect to have pain, and it is the management of this pain that makes a difference to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer M Tocher, 2014. "Expectations and experiences of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair patients: a mixed methods study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3-4), pages 421-428, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:421-428
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12268
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Leech & Anthony Onwuegbuzie, 2009. "A typology of mixed methods research designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 265-275, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans-Joachim Schramm & Carolin Nicole Czaja & Michael Dittrich & Matthias Mentschel, 2019. "Current Advancements of and Future Developments for Fourth Party Logistics in a Digital Future," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Tatiana Khavenson, 2019. "Integration of Schools in Latvia and Estonia Using Curriculum Reforms," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 77-100.
    3. Anastasios Michailidis & Chrysanthi Charatsari & Thomas Bournaris & Efstratios Loizou & Aikaterini Paltaki & Dimitra Lazaridou & Evagelos D. Lioutas, 2024. "A First View on the Competencies and Training Needs of Farmers Working with and Researchers Working on Precision Agriculture Technologies," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Tetsuya Tanioka & Rozzano C. Locsin & Feni Betriana & Yoshihiro Kai & Kyoko Osaka & Elizabeth Baua & Savina Schoenhofer, 2021. "Intentional Observational Clinical Research Design: Innovative Design for Complex Clinical Research Using Advanced Technology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Ayham A. M. Jaaron & Chris J. Backhouse, 2017. "Operationalising “Double-Loop” Learning in Service Organisations: A Systems Approach for Creating Knowledge," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 317-337, August.
    6. Drew D. Bowman & Leia M. Minaker & Bonnie J. K. Simpson & Jason A. Gilliland, 2019. "Development of a Teen-Informed Coding Tool to Measure the Power of Food Advertisements," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Хавенсон Т. Е., 2019. "Интеграция Школ В Латвии И Эстонии Через Реформу Содержания Образования," Вопросы образования // Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 3, pages 77-100.
    8. Bi-Juan Zhong & Yaping Gong & Oded Shenkar & Yadong Luo & Zhixing Xiao & Shuming Zhao, 2023. "Managing the hearts of boundary spanners: CEO organizational identification and international joint venture performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 87-119, March.
    9. Sheikh Basharul Islam & Suhail Ahmad Bhat & Mushtaq Ahmad Darzi, 2021. "Determining the Influence of Private Labels on Sales of National Brands: A Qualitative Approach," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 10(2), pages 133-145, June.
    10. Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji & Fatemeh Yaftiyan & Aliasghar Abbasi-Kamardi & Vahid Jafari-Sadeghi & Jean-Michel Sahut & Leo-Paul Dana, 2023. "A synthesis of boundary conditions with adopting digital platforms in SMEs: an intuitionistic multi-layer decision-making framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 1723-1751, October.
    11. Noorhazlina Ali & Philomena Anthony & Wee Shiong Lim & Mei Sian Chong & Edward Wing Hong Poon & Vicki Drury & Mark Chan, 2021. "Exploring Differential Perceptions and Barriers to Advance Care Planning in Dementia among Asian Patient–Caregiver Dyads—A Mixed-Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-15, July.
    12. Augsburg, Britta & Bancalari, Antonella & Durrani, Zara & Vaidyanathan, Madhav & White, Zach, 2022. "When nature calls back: Sustaining behavioral change in rural Pakistan," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Sommerland, Nina & Masquillier, Caroline & Rau, Asta & Engelbrecht, Michelle & Kigozi, Gladys & Pliakas, Triantafyllos & Janse van Rensburg, Andre & Wouters, Edwin, 2020. "Reducing HIV- and TB-Stigma among healthcare co-workers in South Africa: Results of a cluster randomised trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    14. Faith Shayo & Cosmas Mnyanyi, 2023. "A Competency-Based Approach to ICT Integration in Teacher Education: Perspectives from Tutors and Teacher-Trainees in Tanzania Mainland," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(7), pages 932-946, July.
    15. Klaudia Bracio & Marek Szarucki, 2020. "Mixed Methods Utilisation in Innovation Management Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Summary," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-27, October.
    16. Bloch, Carter & Sørensen, Mads P. & Graversen, Ebbe K. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Schmidt, Evanthia Kalpazidou & Aagaard, Kaare & Mejlgaard, Niels, 2014. "Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-117.
    17. Purwanto & Ina Primiana & Dian Masyita & Erie Febrian, 2018. "Social Outreach Model and Efficiency in Sharia Micro Finance Institution: Literature Review," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 104-122.
    18. DÖRRY Sabine, 2012. "Bridging Monopolies of Power: Foreign Tourism Trade Relations between Germany and Jordan and Constitutional Uncertainty," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-17, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    19. Emeka Dumbili, 2014. "Use of mixed methods designs in substance research: a methodological necessity in Nigeria," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2841-2857, September.
    20. Izhak Berkovich, 2018. "Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2063-2077, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:3-4:p:421-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.