ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022
Factors Affecting the Reception of Self-Management Health Education: A Cross-Sectional Survey Assessing Perspectives of Lower-Income Seniors with Cardiovascular Conditions.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring patient perspectives on the impact of resuming cost sharing: a qualitative analysis.Trials · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Patient Satisfaction and Perspectives on Self-Management Education Programs: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Self-management education and support (SMES) programs can prevent adverse chronic disease outcomes, but factors modifying their reception remain relatively unexplored. We examined how perceptions of an SMES program were influenced by the mode of delivery, and co-receipt of a paired financial benefit. Methods and Patients: Using a cross-sectional survey, we evaluated the perceived helpfulness of a SMES program among 446 low-income seniors at high risk for cardiovascular events in Alberta, Canada. Secondary outcomes included frequency of use, changes in perspectives on health, satisfaction with the program, and comprehensibility of the material. Participants received surveys after engaging with the program for at least 6 months. We used modified Poisson regression to calculate relative risks. Open-ended questions were analyzed inductively. Results: The majority of participants reported that the SMES program was helpful (>80%). Those who also received the financial benefit (elimination of medication copayments) were more likely to report that the SMES program was helpful (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11-1.39). Those who received the program electronically were more likely to use the program weekly (RR 1.51, 1.25-1.84). Both those who received the intervention electronically (RR 1.18, 1.06-1.33), and those who also received copayment elimination (RR 1.17, 1.05-1.31) were more likely to state that the program helped change their perspectives on health. Conclusion: When designing SMES programs, providing the option for electronic delivery appears to promote greater use for seniors. The inclusion of online-delivery and co-receipt of tangible benefits when designing an SMES program for seniors results in favorable reception and could facilitate sustained adherence to health behavior recommendations. Participants also specifically expressed that what they enjoyed most was that the SMES program was informative, helpful, engaging, and supportive.
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.