SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Nursing interventions for rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: cross mapping of terms.

Rev Lat Am Enfermagem · 2016-08-01

DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.0689.2728PMID: 27508903

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Objectiveto perform a cross-term mapping of nursing language in the patient record with the Nursing Interventions Classification system, in rehabilitation patients with Parkinson's disease.Methoda documentary research study to perform cross mapping. A probabilistic, simple random sample composed of 67 records of patients with Parkinson's disease who participated in a rehabilitation program, between March of 2009 and April of 2013. The research was conducted in three stages, in which the nursing terms were mapped to natural language and crossed with the Nursing Interventions Classification.Resultsa total of 1,077 standard interventions that, after crossing with the taxonomy and refinement performed by the experts, resulted in 32 interventions equivalent to the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) system. The NICs, "Education: The process of the disease.", "Contract with the patient", and "Facilitation of Learning" were present in 100% of the records. For these interventions, 40 activities were described, representing 13 activities by intervention.Conclusionthe cross mapping allowed for the identification of corresponding terms with the nursing interventions used every day in rehabilitation nursing, and compared them to the Nursing Interventions Classification.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.