Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37626346›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2023

Empowerment interventions designed for persons living with chronic disease - a systematic review and meta-analysis of the components and efficacy of format on patient-reported outcomes.

Natalie Stepanian, Marie Hamilton Larsen, Joshua B Mendelsohn, Kari L Mariussen, Kristin Heggdal

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Natalie StepanianCollege of Health Professions, Pace University, One Pace Plaza, New York, NY, 10038, USA.
Marie Hamilton LarsenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggaten 15, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Joshua B MendelsohnCollege of Health Professions, Pace University, One Pace Plaza, New York, NY, 10038, USA.
Kari L MariussenLovisenberg Diaconal University College, Lovisenberggaten 15, 0456, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin HeggdalFaculty of Health, VID Specialized University, Theodor Dahls Vei 10, 0370, Oslo, Norway. Kristin.Heggdal@vid.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmpowerment approaches are essential for building the capacity of individuals with chronic disease to be in control of their health. Reviews of empowerment interventions have been focused on specific chronic diseases, thereby limiting the scope of findings. This study had three aims: 1) to describe the characteristics of empowerment interventions covering a broad range of chronic diseases, 2) to clarify consistency with the World Health Organization`s (WHO) definition of empowerment as a process composed of four fundamental components and 3) to summarize outcome measures and estimate the effects in group and individual intervention formats.

methodsSystematic literature review and meta-analysis. CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, COCHRANE and Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched using Chronic Disease, NCD, Empowerment, as MeSH terms. Eligible randomized and quasi randomized controlled trials were included. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2).

resultsThirty-nine articles representing 8,011 participants were included in the review. A majority (82%) of studies reported robust evidence for changes on study-defined outcome measures in favor of interventions. Intervention content was assessed against WHO's four fundamental components of empowerment, showing that all studies incorporated one component, but none targeted all components. Components reflecting knowledge acquisition, patient engagement with their health care providers and facilitating environment were scarcely reported. Meta-analyses found evidence for positive effects of group-format interventions measuring empowerment, HbA1c, and self-efficacy. Effects on empowerment were also found in some individual-format interventions. High levels of heterogeneity and variability among the conceptual frameworks were identified.

conclusionEmpowerment interventions in group-format were most efficient, however, considerable conceptual inconsistencies were identified. Future studies should consolidate conceptual understandings by using WHO's empowerment framework to ensure that fundamental components of empowerment are explicitly included in intervention design. Furthermore, there is a need to clarify the role of empowerment through pathways that include patient activation, self- management, and clinical outcomes. This systematic review will inform the clinicians and researchers who aim to develop novel empowerment interventions to assist patients in the process of gaining control of their health.

trial registrationPROSPERO: International Prospective register of systematic reviews ID=CRD42020178286.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresChronic DiseaseHumansPatient ParticipationResearch PersonnelChronic diseaseEmpowermentInterventionsMeta-analysisPerson-centered careSelf-managementSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37626346
PMCPMC10463815

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.