Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29499658›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2018

Disentangling the effect of illness perceptions on health status in people with type 2 diabetes after an acute coronary event.

Rimke Cathelijne Vos, Marise Jeannine Kasteleyn, Monique Johanna Heijmans, Elke de Leeuw, François Georges Schellevis, Mieke Rijken, Guy Emile Rutten, Diacourse study group

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Rimke Cathelijne VosJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marise Jeannine KasteleynJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. m.j.kasteleyn@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7751-7516
Monique Johanna HeijmansNIVEL (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Elke de LeeuwJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
François Georges SchellevisNIVEL (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mieke RijkenNIVEL (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Guy Emile RuttenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Diacourse study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronically ill patients such as people with type 2 diabetes develop perceptions of their illness, which will influence their coping behaviour. Perceptions are formed once a health threat has been recognised. Many people with type 2 diabetes suffer from multimorbidity, for example the combination with cardiovascular disease. Perceptions of one illness may influence perceptions of the other condition. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effect of an intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with a first acute coronary event on change in illness perceptions and whether this mediates the intervention effect on health status. The current study is a secondary data analysis of a RCT.

methodsTwo hundred one participants were randomised (1:1 ratio) to the intervention (n = 101, three home visits) or control group (n = 100). Outcome variables were diabetes and acute coronary event perceptions, assessed with the two separate Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaires (BIPQs); and health status (Euroqol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS)). The intervention effect was analysed using ANCOVA. Linear regression analyses were used to assess whether illness perceptions mediated the intervention effect on health status.

resultsA positive intervention effect was found on the BIPQ diabetes items coherence and treatment control (F = 8.19, p = 0.005; F = 14.01, p < 0.001). No intervention effect was found on the other BIPQ diabetes items consequence, personal control, identity, illness concern and emotional representation. Regarding the acute coronary event, a positive intervention effect on treatment control was found (F = 7.81, p = 0.006). No intervention effect was found on the other items of the acute coronary event BIPQ. Better diabetes coherence was associated with improved health status, whereas perceiving more treatment control was not. The mediating effect of the diabetes perception 'coherence' on health status was not significant.

conclusionTargeting illness perceptions of people with diabetes after an acute coronary event has no effect on most domains, but can improve the perceived understanding of their diabetes. Discussing perceptions prevents people with type 2 diabetes who recently experienced an acute coronary event from the perception that they will lose control of both their diabetes and the acute coronary event. Illness perceptions of diabetes patients should therefore be discussed in the dynamic period after an acute coronary event.

trial registrationNederlands trial register; NTR3076 , Registered September 20 2011.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationHealth StatusAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedAttitude to HealthDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHome Care ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedAcute coronary eventHealth statusIllness perceptionsMultimorbidityType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID29499658
PMCPMC5833109

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.