ArticleAtencion primaria2020
[Differential impact and heterogeneous needs. A peer-led training program for improving chronic patients' health status and health behaviors].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the impact of the peer-led training for chronic patients on their health status and behaviors.
designDescriptive, transversal pretest and posttest quantitative approach. PLACEMENT: Andalusia.
participantsNine hundred sixty-four patients with Diabetes, fibromyalgia and heart failure, trained at the School of Patients between 2013 and 2015.
interventionsPeer-training intervention for self-efficacy for chronic patients. MAIN MEASUREMENT: Self-reported health status, activity limitation, diet and physical activity. Statistical analysis included descriptive and bivariate statistics, correlation coefficient and net gains for paired variables.
resultsHealth status improved after the training, with less limitations and better diet and physical activity, with significant differences by sex, chronic illness, education level and marriage status. Improvement areas where identified for the training strategy, with special attention on the needs of more vulnerable groups (women, people with less education level).
conclusionsThe peer training had a positive impact, with differences depending on social profiles. 1-year and 2-years posttest measurements are needed and a qualitative study is required in order to better evaluate the peer-led strategy and to adapt it to participants' needs and expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.