Trial reportRevista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia2024
[Comparison of quality of life in patients living with HIV infection through pharmaceutical care according to CMO methodology vs. conventional follow-up. MAS-VIH project].
Trial report in Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of perceived versus actual care complexity in HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral treatment: The STRATPATIENT study.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Observational
- [Analysis of the concordance between theoretical and real stratification in patients living with HIV infection treated at a tertiary care hospital].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025Observational
- Transforming respiratory diseases management: a CMO-based hospital pharmaceutical care model.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare quality of life, in patients living with HIV infection with pharmaceutical care according to the CMO methodology: capacity, motivation and opportunity versus conventional follow-up.
methodsLongitudinal, prospective, multicenter, health intervention study, conducted between October 2019 and November 2021 in 14 centers throughout Spain. Patients over 18 years of age, receiving antiretroviral treatment and attending the consultations of the participating Pharmacy Services for 1 year were included. Patients who did not have the autonomy to complete the planned questionnaires were excluded. At baseline, participating centers were randomized to continue using the same systematics of work (traditional follow-up) or to implement the CMO model using patient stratification models, goal setting in relation to pharmacotherapy, use of motivational interviewing, as well as longitudinal follow-up enabled by new technologies. The main variable was the difference in the number of dimensions positively affected in each follow-up arm at 24 weeks of follow-up according to the MOS-HIV questionnaire. In the CMO group, the interventions performed the most frequently were recorded.
results151 patients were included. The median age was 51.35 years. A significant improvement in quality of life was found at the end of follow-up in the CMO group, reducing the number of patients with negatively affected dimensions (2/11 vs 8/11). The most frequent interventions carried out in the CMO group, according to the taxonomy, were Motivation (51,7%) and review and validation (49,4%).
conclusionsThe quality of life of patients is higher in those centers that develop Pharmaceutical Care based on the CMO methodology compared to traditional follow-up.
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.