Trial reportPloS one2020
Effects of telephone-based health coaching on patient-reported outcomes and health behavior change: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of behavioural interventions with motivational interviewing on physical activity outcomes in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.JCO oncology practice · 2022Trial
- Effectiveness of nurse-led hypertension self-management interventions: A mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of nursing sciences · 2026Review
- Delivering Health Coaching in a Student-Led Telehealth Clinic: Evaluating the Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2026Article
- Digital Health Communication Strategies for Supporting Healthy Lifestyles in Adults with Noncommunicable Diseases and Limited Health Literacy: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review of the Effects of Therapeutic Exercise With Psychological Interventions on Disability and Personal Outcomes in Older Adults.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Article
- Experiences, perceptions and utilization of CareLine: an evaluation study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Integrative Health and Wellness Coaching: A Call to Action to Address a Research Gap for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Article
- Nurse-Led Interventions for Improving Medication Adherence in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Association between physical activity and health literacy in patients with Parkinson's disease: an online web survey.BMC neurology · 2023Article
- Nurse-led telehealth intervention effectiveness on reducing hypertension: a systematic review.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- Understanding the Current Landscape of Health Literacy Interventions within Health Systems.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Zelen design clinical trials: why, when, and how.Trials · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTelephone based health coaching (TBHC) seems to be a promising approach to foster self-management in patients with chronic conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a TBHC on patient-reported outcomes and health behavior for people living with chronic conditions in Germany.
methodsPatients insured at a statutory health insurance were randomized to an intervention group (IG; TBHC) and a control group (CG; usual care), using a stratified random allocation before giving informed consent (Zelen's single-consent design). The TBHC was based on motivational interviewing, goal setting, and shared decision-making and carried out by trained nurses. All outcomes were assessed yearly for three years. We used mixed effects models utilizing all available data in a modified intention-to-treat sample for the main analysis. Participants and study centers were included as random effects. All models were adjusted for age, education and campaign affiliation.
resultsOf the 10,815 invited patients, 4,283 returned their questionnaires at baseline. The mean age was 67.23 years (SD = 9.3); 55.5% were female. According to the model, TBHC was statistically significant superior to CG regarding 6 of 19 outcomes: physical activity in hours per week (p = .030) and in metabolic rate per week (p = .048), BMI (p = .009) (although mainly at baseline), measuring blood pressure (p< .001), patient activation (p< .001), and health literacy (p< .001). Regarding stages of change (p = .005), the IG group also showed statistically different results than the CG group, however the conclusion remains inconclusive. Within-group contrasts indicating changes from baseline to follow-ups and significant between-group comparisons regarding these changes supported the findings. Standardized effect sizes were small. TBHC did not show any effect on mental QoL, health status, alcohol, smoking, adherence, measuring blood sugar, foot monitoring, anxiety, depression and distress. Campaign-specific subgroup effects were detected for 'foot monitoring by a physician' and 'blood sugar measurement'.
conclusionTBHC interventions might have small effects on some patient reported and behavioral outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future research should focus on analyzing which intervention components are effective and who profits most from TBHC interventions. REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien; DRKS): DRKS00000584.
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.