Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Informing Modern Models of Care: A Randomized, Sequential Trial of In-Person, Telehealth, and Telephone Appointments for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Models of outpatient care delivery in inflammatory bowel disease: a scoping review.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA significant shift toward virtual care has occurred for many patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To date, there are no prospective studies assessing patients visits across different styles of appointments.
methodsWe randomized IBD patients' appointments to in-person, video-assisted virtual, or telephone and subsequent appointments to the alternate style of visit in a single-center study in Victoria, Canada. Participants completed surveys after each appointment. Demographic data were collected and average scores were analyzed for potential associations.
resultsForty-one patients were randomized to appointments, and 86 post-appointment surveys were completed, 30 in-person, 29 telephone, and 27 telehealth. The average age was 46.5 ± 18 years and 59% were female. The overall patient score (out of ten) by appointment type was 9.1 ± 1.0 for in-person, 7.8 ± 2.1 for telephone, and 8.0 ± 2.6 for telehealth without a statistically significant difference. While there was only a near statistically significant preference for in-person appointments compared with telehealth p = 0.055, it was statistically significant when comparing with phone appointments p = 0.014. The highest rated factors for preference of an in-person appointment were optimal communication and interaction with care provider (86%). For patients who preferred telehealth or telephone appointments, the highest rated factors were time and cost savings (71%, 43% and 58%, 33%, respectively). In-person appointments were associated with a significantly higher cost (p < 0.01), and longer time commitment.
conclusionsDespite the increased cost and time commitment, in-person appointments were highly rated particularly in comparison to phone appointments. Based on this research, providers can be better informed on factors contributing to patients' preferred appointment style.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39614027What 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.