Trial reportBMJ open2019
Does a simple web-based intervention facilitate the articulation of patients' unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologists? A qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applied techniques for putting pre-visit planning in clinical practice to empower patient-centered care in the pandemic era: a systematic review and framework suggestion.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Patient Partnership Tools to Support Medication Safety in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Protocol for a Nonrandomized Stepped Wedge Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Improving shared decision making in virtual breast cancer surgery consultations.American journal of surgery · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore whether a preconsultation web-based intervention enables patients with diabetes to articulate their agenda in a consultation in the hospital outpatient clinic with their diabetologist. METHODS AND
designA qualitative study embedded in a pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial.
settingTwo city outpatient departments in England.
participants25 patients attending a follow-up consultation and 6 diabetologists.
interventionThe PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist. DATA COLLECTION: 25 participants had their consultation with their diabetologist audio-recorded: 12 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm; 12 of the latter also had their PACE-D intervention session and a consultation recorded. Semi-structured interviews with 6 diabetologists, and 12 patients (6 in the intervention group and 6 in the control group). ANALYSIS: Thematic discourse analysis undertaken with patient representatives trained in qualitative data analysis techniques.
resultsWe identified four consultation types: diabetologist facilitated; patient identified; consultant facilitated and patient initiated and patient ignored. We also identified three critical aspects that explained the production and utilisation of the agenda form: existing consultative style; orientation to the use of the intervention and impact on the consultation. Where patients and diabetologists have a shared preference for a consultant-led or patient-led consultation, the intervention augments effective communication and shared decision making. However, where preferences diverge (eg, there is a mismatch in patients' and diabetologists' preferences and orientations), the intervention does not improve the potential for shared decision making.
conclusionA simple web-based intervention facilitates the articulation of patients' unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologist, but only when pre-existing consultation styles and orientations already favour shared decision making. More needs to be done to translate patient empowerment in the consultation setting into genuine self-efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75070242.
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.