Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33292771›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

A feasibility study on two tailored interventions to improve adherence in adults with haemophilia.

J W Hoefnagels, K Fischer, R A T Bos, M H E Driessens, S L A Meijer, R E G Schutgens, L H Schrijvers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Adherence to prophylaxis and its association with activation of self-management and treatment satisfaction.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

J W HoefnagelsDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. J.W.Hoefnagels@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-2977
K FischerDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R A T BosDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M H E DriessensNetherlands Haemophilia Patient Society (NVHP), Nijkerk, The Netherlands.
S L A MeijerNetherlands Haemophilia Patient Society (NVHP), Nijkerk, The Netherlands.
R E G SchutgensDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L H SchrijversDivision Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Van Creveldkliniek, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLDutch Cancer Society · NLUniversity of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

ZonMw 80-83600-98-3095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHaemophilia is a congenital bleeding disorder mainly affecting males. To prevent bleeding, patients need to perform regular intravenous injections (prophylaxis) throughout life. Non-adherence often occurs. Problems with acceptance or self-management appear to be the main reasons for non-adherence in haemophilia. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and effects of two interventions focussed on acceptance (face-to-face) and self-management (online).

methodsPatients with severe haemophilia and acceptance or self-management problems were eligible. The face-to-face group intervention was based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (8 sessions/6 months, target N = 8 participants). The online intervention was based on a successful online programme in rheumatoid arthritis (5-8 modules/2 months, target N = 8). Both interventions were designed according to the MRC framework in collaboration with the patient society and experts. We compared adherence (VERITAS-Pro, optimum 0), quality of life (SF-36, optimum 100) and illness perception (BIPQ, optimum 0) before start (T0) and after 2 months (T2). Feasibility criteria were as follows: completion of training by > 50% of participants and ability to collect at least 80% of outcome parameters.

resultsThe face-to-face intervention was feasible (89% enrolment and recruitment, 100% retention). One hundred percent of the outcome parameters was collected. Results were promising: although adherence (VERITAS-Pro) was stable (from 64 to 62 points), quality of life (SF-36) showed a clinically relevant improvement (> 5 points) in five of eight domains. Illness perception (BIPQ) showed a clinically relevant increase from 47 to 39 points. Patient evaluation was positive. The online intervention, however, was infeasible: enrolment was only 20% (6/30). Only three patients signed informed consent (recruitment 10%), and none completed more than one module (retention 0%). Consequently, the online intervention was terminated.

conclusionThe face-to-face acceptance intervention was considered feasible with promising results. Unfortunately, the online intervention was infeasible and therefore terminated. These findings suggest that adapting effective interventions to other settings does not guarantee success, despite the use of established methodology and patient participation. Population differences (only male participants, congenital disease) could be an explanation for failure of the online intervention in haemophilia despite success in rheumatoid arthritis.

trial registrationNL55883.041.16.

Indexed as

Acceptance and commitment therapyAdherenceCongenital diseaseIllness acceptanceLifelong treatmentSelf-management

Identifiers

PMID33292771
PMCPMC7708110
OpenAlexW3109965933

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.