Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27252245›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016

Telehealth for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Chris Salisbury, Alicia O'Cathain, Clare Thomas, Louisa Edwards, Daisy Gaunt, Padraig Dixon, Sandra Hollinghurst, Jon Nicholl, Shirley Large, Lucy Yardley and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Telehealth in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022
    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

18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk.
Alicia O'CathainSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Clare ThomasCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Louisa EdwardsCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Daisy GauntBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Padraig DixonCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Sandra HollinghurstCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Jon NichollSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Shirley LargeNHS England South (Wessex), Southampton, UK.
Lucy YardleyDepartment of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Tom FaheyDepartment of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Alexis FosterSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Katy GarnerCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Kimberley HorspoolSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mei-See ManCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
Anne RogersFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Catherine PopeFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Alan A MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, Nottingham Health Science Partners, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBNHS EnglandQueen's Medical Centre · GBRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IE

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0108-10011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether non-clinical staff can effectively manage people at high risk of cardiovascular disease using digital health technologies.

designPragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

setting42 general practices in three areas of England.

participantsBetween 3 December 2012 and 23 July 2013 we recruited 641 adults aged 40 to 74 years with a 10 year cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or more, no previous cardiovascular event, at least one modifiable risk factor (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg, body mass index ≥30, current smoker), and access to a telephone, the internet, and email. Participants were individually allocated to intervention (n=325) or control (n=316) groups using automated randomisation stratified by site, minimised by practice and baseline risk score.

interventionsIntervention was the Healthlines service (alongside usual care), comprising regular telephone calls from trained lay health advisors following scripts generated by interactive software. Advisors facilitated self management by supporting participants to use online resources to reduce risk factors, and sought to optimise drug use, improve treatment adherence, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The control group comprised usual care alone.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to treatment, defined as maintaining or reducing their cardiovascular risk after 12 months. Outcomes were collected six and 12 months after randomisation and analysed masked. Participants were not masked.

results50% (148/295) of participants in the intervention group responded to treatment compared with 43% (124/291) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 1.9; number needed to treat=13); a difference possibly due to chance (P=0.08). The intervention was associated with reductions in blood pressure (difference in mean systolic -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -4.7 to -0.6 mm Hg), mean diastolic -2.8 (-4.0 to -1.6 mm Hg); weight -1.0 kg (-1.8 to -0.3 kg), and body mass index -0.4 ( -0.6 to -0.1) but not cholesterol -0.1 (-0.2 to 0.0), smoking status (adjusted odds ratio 0.4, 0.2 to 1.0), or overall cardiovascular risk as a continuous measure (-0.4, -1.2 to 0.3)). The intervention was associated with improvements in diet, physical activity, drug adherence, and satisfaction with access to care, treatment received, and care coordination. One serious related adverse event occurred, when a participant was admitted to hospital with low blood pressure.

conclusionsThis evidence based telehealth approach was associated with small clinical benefits for a minority of people with high cardiovascular risk, and there was no overall improvement in average risk. The Healthlines service was, however, associated with improvements in some risk behaviours, and in perceptions of support and access to care.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 27508731.

Indexed as

Risk Reduction BehaviorAdultAgedBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SelectionPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchResearch DesignRisk FactorsSoftware Design

Identifiers

PMID27252245
PMCPMC4896755
OpenAlexW2397121209

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.