Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Comfort is a primary goal of healthcare. Theory-informed interventions and measurement are essential for comfort enhancement.
Objectives To categorise and synthesise the international literature on the application of Kolcaba’s Comfort Theory in research and practice aiming to promote adults’ comfort.
Eligibility criteria Papers reporting the application of Kolcaba’s Comfort Theory on adult participants published in English and Chinese.
Sources of evidence MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, JBI EBP Database, CNKI, Wan Fang; grey literature of Google Scholar, Baidu Scholar and The Comfort Line were searched from January 1991 to January 2024.
Chart methods Following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist, two reviewers selected papers and extracted data independently using a standardised chart embedded in NVivo software. A thematic synthesis and a descriptive analysis were provided.
Results The review included 359 papers. Approximately two-thirds (n=216, 60.2%) had been published since 2017. The majority of papers (n=316, 88.0%) originated from China, the USA, Turkey, Brazil and Portugal. The use of Kolcaba’s Comfort Theory was dominated in a range of hospital settings (n=263) and with participants suffering neoplasms (n=55). Seven categories of theory application were identified: (I) interventions underpinned by Comfort Theory as the theoretical framework, (II) interventions evaluated by instruments derived from Comfort Theory, (III) descriptive or observational studies of services or practices underpinned by Comfort Theory, (IV) surveys using questionnaires derived from Comfort Theory, (V) questionnaires development or adaption based on Comfort Theory, (VI) qualitative studies interpreted by Comfort Theory and (VII) literature reviews and discussion about Comfort Theory use. The most commonly evaluated interventions included music therapy (n=31), position intervention (n=20) and massage (n=19), and the most commonly used questionnaire was General Comfort Questionnaire (n=109).
Conclusions Kolcaba’s Comfort Theory has been largely used in interventions and assessments across a wide range of contexts, providing a set of options for practitioners. However, quantifying evidence is needed through further systematic reviews, and continuous development of Comfort Theory is warranted based on the categorisation by this review.
- Adult palliative care
- Pain Management
- Systematic Review
- Complementary Medicine
Data availability statement
No data are available.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
X @Yeelin00
Contributors YL conceptualised the study, drafted the protocol and wrote the manuscript. YZ and CC performed searches, study selection and data extraction, supervised by YL. For update search, YL conducted searches, and YL, CY and JG completed the paper selection and data extraction. YZ formed tables. CC created figures. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. YL acted as guarantor.
Funding This scoping review was funded by Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Budget Projects (2021WK145).
Map disclaimer The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographic or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.