Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12087116›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Computer-generated patient education materials: do they affect professional practice? A systematic review.

Shaun P Treweek, Claire Glenton, Andrew D Oxman, Alister Penrose

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient information and education with modern media: the Spine Society of Europe Patient Line.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shaun P TreweekDepartment of Health Services Research, Oslo, Norway. streweek@online.no
Claire Glenton
Andrew D Oxman
Alister Penrose

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A systematic search of seven electronic databases was done to identify randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of computer-generated patient education material (PEM) on professional practice. Three studies met the authors' criteria. All three studies involved preventive care. All used a complex intervention of which computer-generated PEM was a major component. Improvements in practice were seen in all studies, although these gains were generally modest. One study showed improvement in patient outcomes. Mann-Whitney statistics calculated for the studies' outcome measures ranged from 0.48 to 0.66, equivalent to risk differences of -4 to 32 percent. Computer-generated PEM seems to have a small, positive effect on professional practice. The small number of included studies and the complex nature of the interventions makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the ability of computer-generated PEM to change professional practice. Future work should involve well-defined interventions that can be clearly evaluated in terms of effect and cost.

Indexed as

Medical Informatics ApplicationsPrimary Health CareProfessional PracticeHumansPatient Education as TopicPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

PMID12087116
PMCPMC346622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.