Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28320330›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

Self-monitoring of health data by patients with a chronic disease: does disease controllability matter?

Martine W J Huygens, Ilse C S Swinkels, Judith D de Jong, Monique J W M Heijmans, Roland D Friele, Onno C P van Schayck, Luc P de Witte

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. E-diary use in clinical headache practice: A prospective observational study.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Martine W J HuygensDepartment of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. m.huygens@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Ilse C S SwinkelsNIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Judith D de JongNIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Monique J W M HeijmansNIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roland D FrieleNIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Onno C P van SchayckDepartment of Family Medicine, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Luc P de WitteDepartment of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing emphasis on self-monitoring applications that allow patients to measure their own physical health parameters. A prerequisite for achieving positive effects is patients' willingness to self-monitor. The controllability of disease types, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems could play an essential role in this. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between patients' willingness to self-monitor and a range of disease and patient specific variables including controllability of disease type, patients' perceived self-efficacy and health problems.

methodsData regarding 627 participants with 17 chronic somatic disease types from a Dutch panel of people with chronic diseases have been used for this cross-sectional study. Perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the general self-efficacy scale, perceived health problems using the Physical Health Composite Score (PCS). Participants indicated their willingness to self-monitor. An expert panel assessed for 17 chronic disease types the extent to which patients can independently keep their disease in control. Logistic regression analyses were conducted.

resultsPatients' willingness to self-monitor differs greatly among disease types: patients with diabetes (71.0%), asthma (59.6%) and hypertension (59.1%) were most willing to self-monitor. In contrast, patients with rheumatism (40.0%), migraine (41.2%) and other neurological disorders (42.9%) were less willing to self-monitor. It seems that there might be a relationship between disease controllability scores and patients' willingness to self-monitor. No evidence is found of a relationship between general self-efficacy and PCS scores, and patients' willingness to self-monitor.

conclusionsThis study provides the first evidence that patients' willingness to self-monitor might be associated with disease controllability. Further research should investigate this association more deeply and should focus on how disease controllability influences willingness to self-monitor. In addition, since willingness to self-monitor differed greatly among patient groups, it should be taken into account that not all patient groups are willing to self-monitor.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementSelf EfficacyAgedChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsProspective StudiesSelf CareChronic diseaseDisease controllabilityPatientsSelf-managementSelf-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID28320330
PMCPMC5360032

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.