Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30900999›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2019

Enhanced Patient Activation in Cancer Care Transitions: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Tailored Electronic Health Intervention for Men With Prostate Cancer.

Mirjam Ekstedt, Kristina Schildmeijer, Camilla Wennerberg, Lina Nilsson, Carolina Wannheden, Amanda Hellström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mirjam EkstedtDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4108-391X
Kristina SchildmeijerDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0895-674X
Camilla WennerbergDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7158-2883
Lina NilssoneHealth Institute, Department of medicine and optometry, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2074-3584
Carolina WannhedenMedical Management Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2122-1083
Amanda HellströmDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8398-9552
Linnaeus University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer has increased in incidence worldwide and is the leading cause of cancer death in 24 countries. The most common treatment is radical prostatectomy. However, surgery is associated with postoperative complications such as urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, causing decreased quality of life. If survivors are encouraged to be more active in self-care management, the symptom burden may decrease and quality of life may improve. An electronic health (eHealth) intervention based on motivational behavioral theory has been developed for this purpose.

objectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of standard care in combination with a tailored eHealth and mobile health self-management support system, electronic Patient Activation in Treatment at Home (ePATH), with standard care of adverse effects of prostate cancer treatment (urinary incontinence and sexual functioning) in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. The secondary aim was to test the effect on patient activaftion, motivation, overall well-being, and health literacy over time in and between groups.

methodsA pragmatic multicenter, block-randomized controlled trial with 2 study arms, standard care (control) and eHealth-assisted standard care (intervention), for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. For 80% power, a sample of 242 men will need to be recruited.

resultsRecruitment started in January 2018 and is expected to be completed by August 2019. Data collection will be completed in August 2020. The first cross-sectional results from this trial are anticipated to be published in January 2020.

conclusionsWith the increasing number of prostate cancer survivors, attention should be paid to rehabilitation, psychosocial care, and support for endurance of self-care to reduce suffering from adverse treatment effects, poor quality of life, and depression because of postoperative complications. This project may increase knowledge of how patients can be supported to feel involved in their care and returning to as normal a life as possible. The anticipated effects of ePATH could improve health outcomes for individuals and facilitate follow-up for health care professionals.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: 18055968; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18055968 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN18055968). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/11625.

Indexed as

eHealthmedical informaticsmHealthmotivationpatient activationprostate cancerself-management

Identifiers

PMID30900999
PMCPMC6450475
OpenAlexW2906384662

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.