Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304355›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2019

Satisfaction with a digitally-enabled telephone health coaching intervention for people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia.

Peter Coventry, Peter Bower, Amy Blakemore, Elizabeth Baker, Mark Hann, Jinshuo Li, Angela Paisley, Martin Gibson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Lower-Intensity Interventions for Prediabetes: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Public health digitalization in Europe.European journal of public health · 2019
    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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Peter Coventry1Department of Health Sciences and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0625-3829
Peter Bower2NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Amy Blakemore3Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Elizabeth Baker3Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mark Hann2NIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jinshuo Li4Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Angela Paisley5Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Martin Gibson5Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSalford Royal NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBKleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International evidence shows that lifestyle interventions can effectively reduce the risk of developing diabetes in people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH). A candidate intervention that has potential to be rolled out at population level is health coaching. Digital interventions offer the means to potentially enhance user satisfaction with health coaching and improve efficiencies. We used a randomised controlled trial to test whether a digitally-enabled health coaching intervention that included an online dashboard and telephone health coaching improved user satisfaction and cost-efficiencies compared with a telephone only health coaching intervention. The primary outcome was satisfaction measured by Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). 103 participants with NDH were allocated to the telephone coaching only intervention and 106 participants with NDH were allocated to the digital and telephone coaching intervention. In an intention-to-treat analysis satisfaction was higher in participants allocated to the digital and telephone coaching intervention than those allocated to the telephone only intervention, but the difference was not significant. There were no significant differences between the groups on secondary outcomes (HbA1c, BMI, activation, depression, self-management, health status). From a service commissioning perspective the mean incremental cost of the digitally-enabled intervention was £236 ($332; €270). Call times, including administration, were longer for participants allocated to the digitally-enabled intervention. The results show that user satisfaction with digitally-enabled intervention is broadly equivalent with that of telephone delivered interventions in the context of routinely delivered diabetes prevention programmes. There is scope for future work that assesses how economies of scale can be achieved at larger user bases.

Indexed as

Health careRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID31304355
PMCPMC6550206
OpenAlexW2915368642

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.