Trial reportPatient education and counseling2011
Who listens to our advice? A secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial testing an intervention designed to decrease delay in seeking treatment for acute coronary syndrome.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Reducing the time-lag between onset of chest pain and seeking professional medical help: a theory-based review.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Pooled it
- Barriers to timely treatment-seeking in patients with acute myocardial infarction in Malaysia: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2016Article
- Stroke warning campaigns: delivering better patient outcomes? A systematic review.Patient related outcome measures · 2015Review
- An Update to the Middle-Range Theory of Self-Care of Chronic Illness.ANS. Advances in nursing scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveProlonged prehospital delay in persons experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a problem. Understanding which patients respond best to particular interventions designed to decrease delay time would provide mechanistic insights into the process by which interventions work.
methodsIn the PROMOTION trial, 3522 at-risk patients were enrolled from 5 sites in the United States (56.4%), Australia and New Zealand; 490 (N=272 intervention, N=218 control) had an acute event within 2 years. Focusing on these 490, we (1) identified predictors of a rapid response to symptoms, (2) identified intervention group subjects with a change in these predictors over 3 months of follow-up, and (3) compared intervention group participants with and without the favorable response pattern. Hypothesized predictors of rapid response were increased perceived control and decreased anxiety. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were hypothesized to differ between responders and non-responders.
resultsContrary to hypothesis, responders had low anxiety and low perceived control. Only 73 (26.8%) subjects showed this pattern 3 months following the intervention. No differences in ACS knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs were found.
conclusionThe results of this study challenge existing beliefs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New intervention approaches that focus on a realistic decrease in anxiety and perceived control are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.