Trial reportBMC public health2019
The effect on participation rates of including focused spirometry information in a health check invitation: a cluster-randomised trial in Denmark.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02615769 (Effect on Attendance if Including Focused Information of Spirometry in Preventive Health Checks - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Health Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Effect on Attendance if Including Focused Information of Spirometry in Preventive Health Checks - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Health Care
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of spirometry in early detection of lung disease in adults: a cohort study.BJGP open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly detection of lung disease may help reduce disease development. Detection through preventive health checks may be beneficial. Nevertheless, the knowledge is sparse on how to enhance the participation rate in health checks among citizens at risk of developing lung disease. This study investigates if focused information on spirometry can increase the participation rate in a general health check.
methodsWe conducted an open-label, household cluster-randomised trial with a two-group parallel design including 4407 citizens aged 30-49 years in Denmark and an average cluster size of 1.55 citizens per household. The control group (n = 2213) received a standard invitation describing the content of the general health check and containing practical information. The intervention group (n = 2194) received an extended invitation highlighting the benefits of early detection and prevention of lung disease. The primary outcome was difference in participation rate between the two groups. The secondary outcome was the proportion of participants at risk of lung disease in both groups. Risk profile was defined as current smoking or self-reported lung symptoms. The inclusion period was 25 November 2015-3 February 2017.
resultsNo major difference in participation rate was seen between the intervention group (53.4%) and the control group (52.0%). Participants had statistically significantly higher education level compared to non-participants. A total of 24.2% of the participants were at risk of developing lung disease, but no difference was found between the intervention group and the control group.
conclusionThis study revealed no effect on participation rate of including focused spirometry information in the health check invitation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02615769 . Registered on 25 November 2015. The trial protocol has been published.
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.