Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: A systematic integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The existing evidence demonstrates that survivors of SJS/TEN have reported long-lasting psychological effects of their condition. Burns patients experience similar psychological effects. It is important to look at ways to help allay the psychological complications of SJS/TEN. As there is an absence of evidence on SJS/TEN psychotherapeutic interventions, it was judged to be beneficial to determine the evidence underpinning psychotherapeutic interventions used with burns patients. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic integrative review was to synthesize the evidence relating to psychotherapeutic interventions used with adult burns patients and patients with SJS/TEN. METHOD: The systematic review was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review process and the PRISMA guidelines. Nine databases were searched for English and French language papers published January 2008 to January 2021. The protocol for the review was registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS: Following a screening process, 17 studies were included in the review. Two themes were identified using content analysis, (i) Empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments, (ii) Alternative psychotherapeutic treatments. This review revealed no evidence on specific psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with SJS/TEN. Some of the interventions used with burns patients, viz. relaxation therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy showed some significant benefits. However, the evidence for burns patients is mainly focused on pain and pain anxiety as outcomes. CONCLUSION: Following further research, some of the interventions deployed in burns patients may be applicable to SJS/TEN patients, particularly stress reduction techniques. In addition, the caring behaviours such as compassion, respect, and getting to know the patient as a person are important components to psychological care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".