Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27080318›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Effectiveness of personalised support for self-management in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Nathalie Eikelenboom, Jan van Lieshout, Annelies Jacobs, Frank Verhulst, Joyca Lacroix, Aart van Halteren, Maarten Klomp, Ivo Smeele, Michel Wensing

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. eHealth for people with COPD in the Netherlands: a scoping review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nathalie EikelenboomRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jan van LieshoutRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Annelies JacobsRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Frank VerhulstPsychologist (Doen en blijven doen), Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Joyca LacroixResearcher Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Aart van HalterenResearcher Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Maarten KlompDe Ondernemende Huisarts Care Group, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Ivo SmeeleDe Ondernemende Huisarts Care Group, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Michel WensingRadboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-management support is an important component of the clinical management of many chronic conditions. The validated Self-Management Screening questionnaire (SeMaS) assesses individual characteristics that influence a patient's ability to self-manage.

aimTo assess the effect of providing personalised self-management support in clinical practice on patients' activation and health-related behaviours. DESIGN AND

settingA cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 15 primary care group practices in the south of the Netherlands.

methodAfter attending a dedicated self-management support training session, practice nurses in the intervention arm discussed the results of SeMaS with the patient at baseline, and tailored the self-management support. Participants completed a 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) and validated lifestyle questionnaires at baseline and after 6 months. Data, including individual care plans, referrals to self-management interventions, self-monitoring, and healthcare use, were extracted from patients' medical records. Multilevel multiple regression was used to assess the effect on outcomes.

resultsThe PAM-13 score did not differ significantly between the control (n = 348) and intervention (n = 296) arms at 6 months. In the intervention arm, 29.4% of the patients performed self-monitoring, versus 15.2% in the control arm (effect size r = 0.9, P = 0.01). In the per protocol analysis (control n = 348; intervention n = 136), the effect of the intervention was significant on the number of individual care plans (effect size r = 1.3, P = 0.04) and on self-monitoring (effect size r = 1.0, P = 0.01).

conclusionThis study showed that discussing SeMaS and offering tailored support did not affect patient activation or lifestyle, but did stimulate patients to self-monitor and use individual care plans.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorSelf CareChronic DiseaseClinical ProtocolsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleNetherlandsPrecision MedicinePrimary Health CareRisk Reduction BehaviorSocial SupportSurveys and Questionnaireschronic diseasepersonalised medicineprimary careself-careself-management

Identifiers

PMID27080318
PMCPMC4838448
OpenAlexW2340542514

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.