ArticleBMJ open2022
Patients' with asplenia and doctors' experiences in implementing preventative measures following a novel educational intervention: a qualitative analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longterm efficacy of a patient focused intervention in patients with asplenia- a three year follow-up of the PrePPS trial.Infection · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to optimal sepsis care - a systematized review of healthcare professionals' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2025Review
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 explore patients' with asplenia and general practitioners' (GPs) (1) perceptions of a novel,
designA process evaluation conducted on average 3.5 (for patients) and 3.8 (for GPs) months after the intervention between January 2020 and April 2021 individually by means of semi-structured guideline-based telephone interviews. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis.
participantsVolunteer subsample of N=25 patients with asplenia and N=8 GPs who received the intervention. Inclusion criteria were met by prior participation in the intervention (German-speaking, of full age and insured by the cooperating health insurance). Patient selection was done by purposeful selection aiming at maximum variability in terms of adherence to preventative measures prior to intervention participation. Participating GPs are a non-purposeful selected convenience sample. For reasons of data protection, no personal data was collected.
resultsThe intervention was positively evaluated and its personal relevancy for patients and for the GPs' professional work became apparent. The intervention promoted risk awareness, intention to action, action planning and subsequently, improved adherence to preventative measures. Helpful factors for implementation among the patients were social support by relatives and GPs. Barriers to adherence identified in both groups can be divided into patient-attributed (eg, comorbidities), doctor-related (eg, lack of knowledge or support) as well as contextual factors (eg, vaccine supply constraints).
conclusionsOur findings indicate a patient and GP perceived benefit of the intervention, but still identify prevailing barriers to implementation. In a further step, a quantitative evaluation of the intervention will be conducted and recommendations for integrating the intervention in usual care will be made. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00015238.
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.