Trial reportPloS one2024
Care for patients living with chronic conditions using the ICAN Discussion Aid: A mixed methods cluster-randomized trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03017196 (My Life, My Healthcare), which is not on this 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.
My Life, My Healthcare
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of the ICAN Discussion Aid in improving patients' experience of receiving care for their chronic conditions and health professionals' experience of providing their care.
methodsWe conducted a pragmatic, mixed-methods, cluster-randomized trial of the ICAN Discussion Aid at 8 clinics in 4 independent health systems in the US from January 2017 and to August 2018. Sites were randomized 1:1 in pairs. Participants were primary care health professionals and their adult patients with ≥1 chronic condition. Quantitative outcomes were health professional assessment of chronic illness care and relational coordination and patient-reported self-efficacy to manage chronic disease, self-efficacy to communicate with clinician, treatment burden, assessment of chronic illness care, general health, and disruption from illness and treatment. Uptake of ICAN was assessed with patient qualitative interviews, clinician focus groups/interviews, visit video recordings, and chart review.
results98 clinicians and 1733 patients participated. We found no significant differences between ICAN and usual care sites in mixed effect models on main outcome measures. In adjusted difference-in-differences analyses, we found patient self-efficacy to manage chronic disease (mean difference 0.61 (SE 0.27), p = 0.023), patient self-efficacy to communicate with their clinician (mean difference 0.31 (SE 0.14), p = 0.032), and health professional assessment of chronic illness care (1.42 (SE 0.52), p = 0.007) were significantly better at ICAN sites. Chart review indicated the aid was implemented in 19% of eligible encounters. Qualitative analyses highlighted limited implementation of ICAN as intended overall due to varying clinic challenges but showed that ICAN use as intended was a valued addition to the visit.
conclusionsWhen patients and clinicians use ICAN as intended, which seldom occurred, important conversations emerge. This qualitative finding did not parlay into statistically significant effects on most outcomes of interest.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (# NCT03017196).
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.