Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31215468›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Holistic care program for elderly patients to integrate spiritual needs, social activity, and self-care into disease management in primary care (HoPES3): study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

Cornelia Straßner, Eckhard Frick, Gabriele Stotz-Ingenlath, Nicola Buhlinger-Göpfarth, Joachim Szecsenyi, Johannes Krisam, Friederike Schalhorn, Jan Valentini, Regina Stolz, Stefanie Joos

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Process of Spiritual Care.Frontiers in psychology · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cornelia StraßnerDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. cornelia.strassner@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9393-0183
Eckhard FrickDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Research Center Spiritual Care, Technical University of Munich, Langerstr. 3, 81675, München, Germany.
Gabriele Stotz-IngenlathDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Research Center Spiritual Care, Technical University of Munich, Langerstr. 3, 81675, München, Germany.
Nicola Buhlinger-GöpfarthDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Johannes KrisamDepartment for Medical Biometry, Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Friederike SchalhornInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstr. 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Jan ValentiniInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstr. 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Regina StolzInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstr. 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstr. 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DETechnical University of Munich · DEZimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GL1803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrategies to improve the care of elderly, multimorbid patients frequently focus on implementing evidence-based knowledge by structured assessments and standardization of care. In Germany, disease management programs (DMPs), for example, are run by general practitioners (GPs) for this purpose. While the importance of such measures is undeniable, there is a risk of ignoring other dimensions of care which are essential, especially for elderly patients: their spiritual needs and personal resources, loneliness and social integration, and self-care (i.e., the ability of patients to do something on their own except taking medications to increase their well-being). The aim of this study is to explore whether combining DMPs with interventions to address these dimensions is feasible and has any impact on relevant outcomes in elderly patients with polypharmacy.

methodsAn explorative, cluster-randomized controlled trial with general practices as the unit of randomization will be conducted and accompanied by a process evaluation. Patients aged 70 years or older with at least three chronic conditions receiving at least three medications participating in at least one DMP will be included. The control group will receive DMP as usual. In the intervention group, GPs will conduct a spiritual needs assessment during the routinely planned DMP appointments and explore whether the patient has a need for more social contact or self-care. To enable GPs to react to such needs, several aids will be provided by the study: a) training of GPs in spiritual needs assessment and training of medical assistants in patient counseling regarding self-care and social activity; b) access to a summary of regional social offers for seniors; and c) information leaflets on nonpharmacological interventions (e.g., home remedies) to be applied by patients themselves to reduce frequent symptoms in old age. The primary outcome is health-related self-efficacy (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale (SES-6G)). Secondary outcomes are general self-efficacy (using the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)), physical and mental health (using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12)), patient activation (using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM)), medication adherence (using the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS)), beliefs in medicine (using the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)), satisfaction with GP care (using selected items of the European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice (EUROPEP)), social contacts (using the 6-item Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6)), and loneliness (using the 11-item De-Jong-Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGS-11)). Interviews will be conducted to assess the mechanisms, feasibility, and acceptability of the interventions. DISCUSSION: If the interventions prove to be effective and feasible, large-scale implementation should be sought and evaluated by a confirmatory design.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00015696 . Registered on 22 January 2019.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementHolistic HealthLonelinessRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelf CareAgedCluster AnalysisHumansMedication AdherencePrimary Health CareResearch DesignSpiritualityAlternative medicineHome remediesLonelinessMedicationNaturopathic medicineOld agePrimary careSelf-careSelf-efficacySpiritual care

Identifiers

PMID31215468
PMCPMC6582494
OpenAlexW2950507526

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.