umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Lack of Consensus and Dense Content in Informational Letters on Benign Gynecological Surgery
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology.
2018 (English)In: Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ISSN 2160-8792, E-ISSN 2160-8806, Vol. 8, no 14, p. 1583-1595Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: This study maps the contents of departmental informational letters and explores whether the national GynOp letters live up to the patients’ expectations and needs. 

Introduction: Patients who are well informed before undergoing surgery experience reduced stress and increased understanding of the postoperative process. Although providing patients with written information before gynecological surgery is widely used and assumed important, no study has investigated what information patients truly need. 

Methods: In 2014, all 59 gynecological departments in Sweden were asked to provide the information letter they send to patients before hysterectomy on benign indication. 32 letters were analyzed using frequency analysis. In addition, three focus groups were conducted and these data were submitted to Qualitative Content Analysis. 

Results: The analysis of the information letters showed great variation and discrepancy in pre-operative information. The analysis of the focus groups resulted in the theme You can’t see the forest for the trees, reflecting that, the women found it very difficult to identify the most important information among the massive amount information received. 

Conclusions: The informational letters did not meet the patients’ expectations and needs. 

Practice implications: This study could serve as a foundation for the content of informational letters.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 8, no 14, p. 1583-1595
Keywords [en]
Patient Information, Gynecological Surgery, Quality Register, Qualitative, Focus Group Discussions
National Category
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-158862DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2018.814159OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-158862DiVA, id: diva2:1315250
Available from: 2019-05-13 Created: 2019-05-13 Last updated: 2019-05-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(746 kB)51 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 746 kBChecksum SHA-512
75433ada3ee0927cc77e2a42b378cf6a228f454b9d287560a2371398cf620bbbf98e3644ba769d8166639bb5e12232a0eeebf3da8443d08cc4c5d402008a079f
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Nilsson, MargaretaLöfgren, MatsLindqvist, Maria

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nilsson, MargaretaLöfgren, MatsLindqvist, Maria
By organisation
Obstetrics and Gynecology
In the same journal
Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 51 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 82 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf