Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36303596›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2022

The Patient Activation Measure in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Interview-Based Survey.

Lobna Al Juffali, Haya M Almalag, Najd Alswyan, Jawaher Almutairi, Dalal Alsanea, Hussain F Alarfaj, Abdurhman S Alarfaj, Hanan H Abouzaid, Mohammed A Omair

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lobna Al JuffaliDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-7474-9028
Haya M AlmalagDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-8531-556X
Najd AlswyanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Jawaher AlmutairiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Dalal AlsaneaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hussain F AlarfajRheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdurhman S AlarfajRheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hanan H AbouzaidDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4423-4445
Mohammed A OmairRheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-9373-5473
King Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction/Objective: The patient activation measure (PAM) is considered a reliable tool for measuring patient activation. This study aimed to systematically review the scientific literature regarding the use of PAM -13 in rheumatology patients and to compare PAM scores in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following two different practices at a single institution with previously published studies. Methods: The study consisted of a systematic review of articles reporting the PAM-13 in patients with RA, followed by a cross-sectional study evaluating PAM scores between standard rheumatology clinics and specialized rheumatology clinics (SRCs). The correlation between PAM levels and other variables, such as demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment, was assessed. Results: Nineteen studies, published between 2012 and 2022, met the inclusion criteria. The studies in this review had inconsistent results and quality, with patient activation in RA ranging from 29 to 76. A total of 197 patients with confirmed RA diagnoses were interviewed (response rate, 88%). Most were female (n=173, 88%) and older than 40 years (n=150, 76%). The average patient activation score was 64.9 (standard deviation, 15.7). Most participants had level 3 and 4 patient activation measures (n=71 [36%] and n=72[37%], respectively). Patients who were attending SRCs also had borderline higher PAM levels. Patients with high PAM scores tended to be older, have active disease, and were taking corticosteroids. Conclusion: Adequate activation of patients was observed from our center, which was higher than that reported in most published literature. The PAM of patients with RA was variable according to the systematic review. Longitudinal interventional studies should be considered to improve activation in patients with low scores.

Indexed as

cross-sectional studypatient activation measurespatient engagementrheumatoid arthritissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36303596
PMCPMC9592735
OpenAlexW4306774050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.