Table 1: An analysis of acupressure based on FAME criteria.
| Items | Criteria for a better intervention | Related to acupressure project | Grades of recommendation |
| Feasibility | · What is the cost effectiveness of the practice?
|
· Dependent on the instrument used
|
Acupressure is likely to be cost-effective. No cost-effectiveness analysis has been conducted in acupuncture or acupressure for PONV. |
| · Is the resource/practice available?
|
· Either form of acupressure requires training; instrument can be easily bought, but the price depends on the instrument | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application | |
| · Are there sufficient experience/levels of competency available? | · Both require some training; and one may require more. | Strong support that merits application | |
| Appropriate-ness
|
· Is it culturally acceptable?
|
· Yes. A previous Australian Survey supports this. | Strong support that merits application |
| · Is it transferable /applicable to the majority of the population?
|
· Yes. Very few conditions are contraindicated for acupressure. | Strong support that merits application | |
| · Is it easily adaptable to a variety of circumstances | · Yes. Can be applied to emergency or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. | Strong support that merits application | |
| Meaningful-ness
|
· Is it associated with positive experiences?
|
· Yes, Improved patients’ experience
|
Moderate support that warrants consideration of application |
| · Is it not associated with negative experiences? | · Yes. Mild, but tolerable discomfort was reported by some patients. | Moderate support that warrants consideration of application | |
| Effective-ness
|
· Was there a beneficial effect | Yes, evidence supports this. Acupressure. | Strong support that merits application |
| · Is it safe? i.e. is there a lack of harm associated with the practice?
|
Yes, evidence supports this. | Strong support that merits application |
