Trial reportCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2022
Tool to improve patient-provider interactions in adult primary care: Randomized controlled pilot study.
Trial report in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2022. 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Healthcare interventions to improve health outcomes for racially/ethnic minoritised people with multiple long-term conditions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making in Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Harnessing storytelling with medical students and community members to build curiosity and trust: A mixed methods evaluation of a pilot intervention.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.Annual review of public health · 2024Review
- Patients' Perspectives on the Use of a Newly Developed "Patients' Guide for Doctor's Visit": DocVISITguide.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Associations Between Gender and Racial Patient-Physician Concordance and Visit Outcomes Among Hypertensive Patients in Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Capturing the Complexities of "Difficult" Patient Encounters Using a Structural Equation Model.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether an intervention to help patients prioritize goals for their visit would improve patient-provider communication and clinical outcomes.
designRandomized controlled pilot study.
settingPrimary care clinic.
participantsThere were 120 adult hypertensive patients enrolled.
interventionPatients were randomized to receive either usual care or a previsit patient activation card developed through a series of focus groups that prompted patients to articulate their needs and set priorities for their clinic visit. Encounters were audiorecorded, transcribed, and assessed using duplicate ratings of patient activation and decision making.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in medication adherence as measured by pill count at 4 and 12 weeks after the initial visit. Secondary outcomes evaluated patient-provider interaction quality (patient satisfaction, patient activation, shared decision making, patient trust, and physicians' perceived difficulty of the encounter), functional status, and blood pressure control.
resultsOf the 120 enrolled patients, 106 completed the baseline visit (mean age of 66 years, 53% women, 57% Black, 36% White). Participants had multiple comorbidities (median number of medications = 8). During the visit, there was greater patient activation in the intervention arm than in the control arm (4.4 vs 3.8,
conclusionA single previsit tool designed to prompt patients to set a prioritized agenda improved patient activation during the visit, but did not affect the quality of the interaction or postvisit patient-centred outcomes.
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.