AzTrials
AzTrials

EmergencyNCT02610205

Caring Touch as a Bodily Anchor for Patients After Sustaining a Motor Vehicle Accident

An observational study of Emergency, run by Fanny Airosa.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The aim of this study was to explore participants´ subjective experiences and perspectives on pain and other factors of importance after an early nursing intervention consisting of "caring touch" (tactile massage and healing touch) for participants subjected to a motor vehicle accident with minor or no physical… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Emergency
What is being tested?
caring touch
How many people
41 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Sep 2012to May 2014
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: A recruitment of potential study participants was made up from a list of incoming patients, arriving at the emergency department following an MVA, and who upon medical examinations were given an injury severity score (ISS) between 0-3 and subsequently discharged straight home. ISS is a 0-8 point scale rating injury severity, where a rating of 0 indicates no physical injury, 1-3 represents minor physical injuries; and 8 corresponds to a life-threatening injury

Who may be able to join

  • literate in Swedish and cognitively intact, arriving at the emergency department following an MVA, and who upon medical examinations were given an injury severity score (ISS) between 0-3 and subsequently discharged straight home.

Who cannot join

  • -

About this study

Official title: Integrative Care at the Emergency Department

The aim of this study was to explore participants´ subjective experiences and perspectives on pain and other factors of importance after an early nursing intervention consisting of "caring touch" (tactile massage and healing touch) for participants subjected to a motor vehicle accident with minor or no physical injuries.

Read the detailed description

The study was conducted as a longitudinal study, combining qualitative and quantitative perspectives, i.e. a mixed-methods design. The rationale for combining quantitative and qualitative methods was to provide a comprehensive exploration of the research question.Investigators conducted the interviews in a closed meeting room at the hospital, three months after the participant´s first hospital visit. The time span was set to allow the participants to conclude their treatments with caring touch. The interviews, which lasted up to 60 minutes, were conducted in Swedish, digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by the investigators. An open-ended question was used to initiate the interviews. The quantitative primary outcome was current level of pain measured by VAS, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst imaginable pain). Participants rated their current VAS pain at baseline during the initial visit and before and after each treatment session with caring touch, and then again via a postal follow-up after six months. Secondary exploratory outcomes were sense of coherence (SOC), constructed by Antonovsky on the basis of a salutogenic model. The Sense of Coherence scale was of interest since this instrument capture the participants' experiences of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness which we assumed could be linked to participant recovery. SOC, a 13-item rating scale, developed using the subscales of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Total scores of 21-59 indicate low sense of coherence, 60-74 an average sense of coherence, and 75-91 high sense of coherence. Additionally, the Impact of Event Scale (IES-R) has been well used in previous trauma research and was decided as being an appropriate tool to explore to what extent the participants experienced post-traumatic stress disease. IES-R, 22-item scale shows the degree to which the traumatic experience is felt on a consciousness level, and if the person exhibits avoidant behaviour. The IES-R is based on a 4-point frequency scales (i.e., 0=not at all, 1= a little bit, 2= moderately, 3=quite a bit, and 4=extremely). An average of the total scale sum of 1.8-2.0 indicates post-traumatic stress disorder. The IES-R seems to be a solid measure of post-traumatic phenomena that can augment related assessment approaches in clinical and research contexts. The European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) instrument was employed to explore participants´ health-related quality of life and self-related health. The EQ-5D instrument was selected because of the short-form and that it has been widely used to measure quality of life among the County Councils of Sweden. EQ-5D is a standardized instrument for measuring health outcome. Participants classify their health in terms of five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has three levels of severity: (1) no problems, (2) moderate problems, and (3) severe problems. From the sum a number of total 243 combinations of health can be created. Each health combination generates an index value from -0.59 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates full health. Additionally, the EQ-5D has a visual analogue scale for self-rated health with the anchors at zero (worst imaginable health) up to 100 (best imaginable health).

Data from VAS pain ratings and questionnaires was manually transferred from paper into an electronic database before statistical analysis. Summary characteristics of participants were presented as proportions, mean, median, standard deviation and/or min-max values. Change scores of VAS pain ratings, SOC, IES-R and EQ-5D over time between baseline and follow-up after six months were analysed for patients with complete data. Considering rating scales and ordinal types of data, and the relatively small sample sizes, non-parametric statistical analysis, i.e. the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for assessing change scores over time. All p-value calculations were conducted with a 5% significance level. An additional descriptive analysis was conducted for VAS pain ratings before and after each treatment session with caring touch. Computational software included STATA 13, StataCorp, USA and Microsoft Excel 2011, Microsoft, USA.

Conditions
Emergency
Being tested
caring touch
Keywords
Caring touch, Tactile massage, Healing touch
Medical subject headings
Emergencies

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • caring touchOther

    Also called healing touch, tactile massage

    The caring touch was adjusted to suit each participant and lasted for 20-60 minutes, once a week, for a maximum of eight treatment sessions altogether. The tactile massage, a soft tissue massage, without applying direct pressure or stretching to the muscles. The massage can be described as slow, gentle, structured, circulating movements with the palm of the therapist's hand, during which natural oil, or oil with the fragrance of lavender, was applied. The healing touch was based on an established procedure, during which the therapist applied a light pressure to the feet, ankles, knees, hips, stomach, heart area, arms, throat, forehead and scalp. The participant was fully dressed during the healing touch, as the therapist used her/his hand in different positions on the participant's body.

Study groups in NCT02610205
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Caring touch interventionsThe study was conducted as a mixed-methods design. A recruitment of potential study participants was made up from a list of incoming patients arriving at the emergency department following an MVA, and who upon medical examinations were given an injury severity score between 0-3 and subsequently discharged straight home. ISS is a 0-8 point scale rating injury severity, where a rating of 0 indicates no physical injury; 1-3 represents minor physical injuries. The patients were informed about the study by mail during the week after the MVA, and those interested in participating in the caring touch intervention were asked to contact the investigator and subsequently completed a written informed consent form during the first encounter with the therapist.
Receives: Other: caring touch

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Qualitative interviews

    The interviews, which lasted up to 60 minutes, were conducted in Swedish, digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim by the investigator. An open-ended question was used to initiate the interviews. The interviews were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation (STC), based on Giorgi's psychological phenomenological analysis. The procedure consisted of the following steps: 1) An overview of the data was established, reading through all the interview transcripts; 2) A systematic review of the interviews was made line by line, identifying and sorting meaning units; 3) Meaning units were systematically abstracted and sorted into thematic code groups across individual participants; 4) data was synthesized from the thematic code groups to descriptions and concepts.

    Measured: Three months after inclusion

  2. Visual analogue scale (VAS)

    The quantitative primary outcome was current level of pain measured by VAS, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst imaginable pain). Participants rated their current VAS pain at baseline during the initial visit and before and after each treatment session with caring touch, and then again via a postal follow-up after six months. The VAS is a standard instrument for assessing pain that was feasible for the nurses to use in the emergency care setting.

    Measured: Change from baseline pain at 6 months

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Sense of coherence (SOC) scale

    The Sense of Coherence scale was of interest since this instrument capture the participants' experiences of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness which we assumed could be linked to participants recovery. SOC, a 13-item rating scale, developed using the subscales of comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness. Total scores of 21-59 indicate low sense of coherence, 60-74 an average sense of coherence, and 75-91 high sense of coherence

    Measured: Change from baselines sence of coherence at 6 months

  2. Impact of Event Scale (IES-R)

    The Impact of Event Scale has been well used in previous trauma research and was decided as being an appropriate tool to explore to what extent the participants experienced post-traumatic stress disease. IES-R, 22-item scale shows the degree to which the traumatic experience is felt on a consciousness level, and if the person exhibits avoidant behaviour. The IES-R is based on a 4-point frequency scales (i.e., 0=not at all, 1= a little bit, 2= moderately, 3=quite a bit, and 4=extremely). An average of the total scale sum of 1.8-2.0 indicates post-traumatic stress disorder. The IES-R seems to be a solid measure of post-traumatic phenomena that can augment related assessment approaches in clinical and research contexts.

    Measured: Change from baselines post traumatic stress at 6 months

  3. The European Quality of Life (EQ-5D)

    The European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) instrument was employed to explore participants´ health-related quality of life and self-related health. The EQ-5D instrument was selected because of the short-form and that it has been widely used to measure quality of life among the County Councils of Sweden. EQ-5D is a standardized instrument for measuring health outcome. Participants classify their health in terms of five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has three levels of severity: (1) no problems, (2) moderate problems, and (3) severe problems. From the sum a number of total 243 combinations of health can be created. Each health combination generates an index value from -0.59 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates full health. Additionally, the EQ-5D has a visual analogue scale for self-rated health with the anchors at zero (worst imaginable health) up to 100 (best imaginable health).

    Measured: Change from baselines quality of life at 6 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Nov 2015 (estimated)
  2. Study startSep 2012
  3. Primary completionJan 2014
  4. Study completionMay 2014

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
41 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02610205
Sponsor's protocol ID
Touch-ED
Status last verified
Nov 2015
First submitted
6 Nov 2015
Last updated
23 Nov 2015
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Airosa F, Arman M, Sundberg T, Ohlen G, Falkenberg T. Caring touch as a bodily anchor for patients after sustaining a motor vehicle accident with minor or no physical injuries - a mixed methods study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Mar 22;16:106. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-1084-2.

    PubMed 27004552

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Emergency, run by Fanny Airosa.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Nov 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Qualitative interviews (time frame: Three months after inclusion). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02610205, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Nov 2015.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in