Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23171672›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2012

Implementation strategies of internet-based asthma self-management support in usual care. Study protocol for the IMPASSE cluster randomized trial.

Johanna L van Gaalen, Moira J Bakker, Leti van Bodegom-Vos, Jiska B Snoeck-Stroband, Willem J J Assendelft, Ad A Kaptein, Victor van der Meer, Christian Taube, Bart P Thoonen, Jacob K Sont and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Remote versus face-to-face check-ups for asthma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

11 authors.

Johanna L van GaalenDepartment of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, P,O, Box 9600, 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands. j.l.van_gaalen@lumc.nl
Moira J Bakker
Leti van Bodegom-Vos
Jiska B Snoeck-Stroband
Willem J J Assendelft
Ad A Kaptein
Victor van der Meer
Christian Taube
Bart P Thoonen
Jacob K Sont
IMPASSE study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet-based self-management (IBSM) support cost-effectively improves asthma control, asthma related quality of life, number of symptom-free days, and lung function in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The current challenge is to implement IBSM in clinical practice. METHODS/

designThis study is a three-arm cluster randomized trial with a cluster pre-randomisation design and 12 months follow-up per practice comparing the following three IBSM implementation strategies: minimum strategy (MS): dissemination of the IBSM program; intermediate strategy (IS): MS + start-up support for professionals (i.e., support in selection of the appropriate population and training of professionals); and extended strategy (ES): IS + additional training and ongoing support for professionals. Because the implementation strategies (interventions) are primarily targeted at general practices, randomisation will occur at practice level.In this study, we aim to evaluate 14 primary care practices per strategy in the Leiden-The Hague region, involving 140 patients per arm. Patients aged 18 to 50 years, with a physician diagnosis of asthma, prescription of inhaled corticosteroids, and/or montelukast for ≥3 months in the previous year are eligible to participate. Primary outcome measures are the proportion of referred patients that participate in IBSM, and the proportion of patients that have clinically relevant improvement in the asthma-related quality of life. The secondary effect measures are clinical outcomes (asthma control, lung function, usage of airway treatment, and presence of exacerbations); self-management related outcomes (health education impact, medication adherence, and illness perceptions); and patient utilities. Process measures are the proportion of practices that participate in IBSM and adherence of professionals to implementation strategies. Cost-effective measurements are medical costs and healthcare consumption. Follow-up is six months per patient. DISCUSSION: This study provides insight in the amount of support that is required by general practices for cost-effective implementation of IBSM. Additionally, design and results can be beneficial for implementation of other self-management initiatives in clinical practice.

trial registrationthe Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2970.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsInternetAcetatesAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaCost-Benefit AnalysisCyclopropanesFemaleGlucocorticoidsHealth StatusHumansInformation DisseminationMaleAcetatesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsCyclopropanesGlucocorticoidsmontelukastQuinolinesSulfides

Identifiers

PMID23171672
PMCPMC3514342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.