Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27660423›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016

A randomized, controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a glaucoma patient navigator to improve appointment adherence.

Lisa A Hark, Deiana M Johnson, Giuliana Berardi, Neal S Patel, Lichuan Zeng, Yang Dai, Eileen L Mayro, Michael Waisbourd, L Jay Katz

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% 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.

NCT02347670 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison Study of Glaucoma Eye Care Follow-Up Adherence in a High Risk Population

TypeinterventionalSponsorWills EyeRan2014 to 2015Enrolled155ConditionsGlaucomaArmsEfficacy-patient navigator to improve follow-up adherence, Office-Based Usual Care
NCT02982629 nacompletednot on this map

Improving Access to Eye Care in Glaucoma Patients a Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWills EyeRan2013 to 2013Enrolled250ConditionsGlaucomaArmsReminder letter Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Lisa A HarkWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Deiana M JohnsonWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Giuliana BerardiWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Neal S PatelWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lichuan ZengWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Yang DaiWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eileen L MayroWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Michael WaisbourdWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
L Jay KatzWills Eye Hospital Glaucoma Research Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Wills Eye Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with glaucoma who do not keep their follow-up eye care appointments are at risk for developing more severe ocular disease. The primary aim of the current study was to evaluate whether the use of a patient navigator altered adherence to follow-up eye care appointments in community-versus office-based settings. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients diagnosed with a glaucoma-related condition following a comprehensive eye examination at 43 community sites in Philadelphia, PA, USA, were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients were randomized into three groups for a 1-year period: Group 1 (G1) received follow-up eye care in a community-based setting with assistance from a patient navigator; Group 2 (G2) received follow-up eye care in an office-based setting with assistance from a patient navigator; and Group 3 (G3) received follow-up eye care in an office-based setting without a patient navigator (usual care). Adherence rates were compared among these three groups using a chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05.

resultsA total of 155 patients with glaucoma-related diagnoses were enrolled. The mean age (±standard deviation) was 71.2 (±10.0) years. Patients were predominantly female (65.8%, n=102/155) and African-American (71.6%, n=111/155). The mean (±standard deviation) number of follow-up visits during the 1-year study period was 1.3 (±1.3) for G1, 1.6 (±1.3) for G2, and 1.3 (±1.1) for G3 (P=0.48). Appointment adherence, defined as attendance of ≥1 follow-up visit, was 69.8% (n=37/53) for G1, 82.5% (n=47/57) for G2, and 73.3% (n=33/45) for G3, (P=0.28). Sub-analysis of adherence rates for patients who attended ≥2 follow-up visits were 91.3% (n=21/23) for G1, 74.3% (n=26/35) for G2, and 66.7% (n=18/27) for G3, (P=0.11).

conclusionHelp from a patient navigator did not increase the likelihood of keeping ≥1 follow-up appointment in an office-based setting. Adherence rates for follow-up appointments reached close to 70% or above in a self-selected patient population.

Indexed as

access to eye careappointment adherenceglaucomapatient navigatorunderserved population

Identifiers

PMID27660423
PMCPMC5019463
OpenAlexW2510459482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.