Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23973555›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2013

Use of a web 2.0 portal to improve education and communication in young patients with families: randomized controlled trial.

Lena Hanberger, Johnny Ludvigsson, Sam Nordfeldt

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Sociodemographic Factors Influencing the Use of eHealth in People with Chronic Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Lena HanbergerDivision of Pediatrics, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. lena.hanberger@lio.se
Johnny Ludvigsson
Sam Nordfeldt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes requires extensive self-care and comprehensive knowledge, making patient education central to diabetes self-management. Web 2.0 systems have great potential to enhance health information and open new ways for patients and practitioners to communicate.

objectiveTo develop a Web portal designed to facilitate self-management, including diabetes-related information and social networking functions, and to study its use and effects in pediatric patients with diabetes.

methodsA Web 2.0 portal was developed in collaboration with patients, parents, and practitioners. It offered communication with local practitioners, interaction with peers, and access to relevant information and services. Children and adolescents with diabetes in a geographic population of two pediatric clinics in Sweden were randomized to a group receiving passwords for access to the portal or a control group with no access (n=230) for 1 year. All subjects had access during a second study year. Users' activity was logged by site and page visits. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL), empowerment (DES), and quality of information (QPP) questionnaires were given at baseline and after 1 and 2 study years. Clinical data came from the Swedish pediatric diabetes quality registry SWEDIABKIDS.

resultsThere was a continuous flow of site visits, decreasing in summer and Christmas periods. In 119/233 families (51%), someone visited the portal the first study year and 169/484 (35%) the second study year. The outcome variables did not differ between intervention and control group. No adverse treatment or self-care effects were identified. A higher proportion of mothers compared to fathers visited once or more the first year (P<.001) and the second year (P<.001). The patients who had someone in the family visiting the portal 5 times or more, had shorter diabetes duration (P=.006), were younger (P=.008), had lower HbA1c after 1 year of access (P=.010), and were more often girls (P<.001). Peer interaction seems to be a valued aspect.

conclusionsThe Web 2.0 portal may be useful as a complement to traditional care for this target group. Widespread use of a portal would need integration in routine care and promotion by diabetes team members.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN):92107365; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN92107365/ (Archived by WebCite at http://webcitation.org/6IkiIvtSb).

Indexed as

InternetAdolescentAdultDiabetes MellitusHumansPatient Education as TopicQuality of LifeadolescentchildrenHbA1chealth information technologyintervention studiespatient educationtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID23973555
PMCPMC3758041

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.