ArticleInfection2023
Efficacy of a novel patient-focused intervention aimed at increasing adherence to guideline-based preventive measures in asplenic patients: the PrePSS trial.
Article in Infection, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of a nurse-led HAPA-based discharge planning on post-operative outcomes in urolithiasis patients with double-J stents: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Longterm efficacy of a patient focused intervention in patients with asplenia- a three year follow-up of the PrePPS trial.Infection · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether a novel intervention improves the adherence to guideline-based preventive measures in asplenic patients at risk of post-splenectomy sepsis (PSS).
methodsWe used a prospective controlled, two-armed historical control group design to compare a novel, health action process approach (HAPA)-based telephonic intervention involving both patients and their general practitioners to usual care. Eligible patients were identified in cooperation with the insurance provider AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Patients with anatomic asplenia (n = 106) were prospectively enrolled and compared to a historical control group (n = 113). Comparisons were done using a propensity-score-based overlap-weighting model. Adherence to preventive measures was quantified by the study-specific 'Preventing PSS score' (PrePSS score) which includes pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccination status, the availability of a stand-by antibiotic and a medical alert card.
resultsAt six months after the intervention, we estimated an effect of 3.96 (95% CI 3.68-4.24) points on the PrePSS score scale (range 0-10) with mean PrePSS scores of 3.73 and 7.70 in control and intervention group, respectively. Substantial improvement was seen in all subcategories of the PrePSS score with the highest absolute gains in the availability of stand-by antibiotics. We graded the degree of participation by the general practitioner (no contact, short contact, full intervention) and noted that the observed effect was only marginally influenced by the degree of physician participation.
conclusionsPatients who had received the intervention exhibited a significantly higher adherence to guideline-based preventive measures compared to the control group. These data suggest that widespread adoption of this pragmatic intervention may improve management of asplenic patients. Health insurance provider-initiated identification of at-risk patients combined with a patient-focused intervention may serve as a blueprint for a wide range of other preventive efforts leading to patient empowerment and ultimately to better adherence to standards of care.
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.