Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41236397›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2025

Process evaluation findings contradict RCT results of the IBD-BOOST digital self-management intervention for fatigue, pain and faecal urgency in inflammatory bowel disease: A mixed methods study of patient perspectives.

Wladyslawa Czuber-Dochan, Vari Wileman, Lesley Dibley, Paramasivan Shankavi, Alawi Fatima, Christine Norton, Rona Moss-Morris, Stephanie J C Taylor

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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

8 authors.

Wladyslawa Czuber-DochanFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9889-1248
Vari WilemanDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9673-8047
Lesley DibleyInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7964-7672
Paramasivan ShankaviFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Alawi FatimaDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Christine NortonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2259-0948
Rona Moss-MorrisDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2927-3446
Stephanie J C TaylorWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7454-6354

Funding

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis parallel process evaluation examined the implementation of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of IBD-BOOST-a digital, interactive, facilitator-supported self-management intervention targeting fatigue, pain and urgency/faecal incontinence in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The RCT, involving 780 participants, compared IBD-BOOST with usual care but found no significant differences in quality of life (QoL) or symptom relief at six months post-randomisation.

methodsA concurrent mixed methods design was employed. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews; quantitative data were derived from the intervention platform's built-in analytics. Qualitative data were analysed using narrative thematic and framework analysis; quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistics.

resultsInterviews were conducted with participants pre- (n = 30) and post-intervention (n = 28). At baseline, participants highlighted a need for improved education and support targeting fatigue, pain and urgency/faecal incontinence, expressing a preference for digital delivery due to its flexibility. Post-intervention, treatment group interviewees reported high satisfaction with the intervention's content and structure, with many continuing to use the strategies learned, reporting enhanced symptom management and QoL. However, quantitative data indicated low adherence. Control group interviewees expressed disappointment with their allocation but anticipated benefits from deferred access to the intervention.

conclusionsAlthough the RCT found no statistically significant effect of IBD-BOOST on primary outcomes, the process evaluation results revealed perceived benefits in symptom understanding and developing new management strategies. The intervention was well-received, and patients reported improvements in QoL. There was strong patient support for the IBD-BOOST intervention to be freely available to all individuals with IBD.

Indexed as

FatigueFecal IncontinenceInflammatory Bowel DiseasesPainPain ManagementSelf-ManagementAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchQuality of Lifedigital interventioninflammatory bowel diseaseprocess evaluationrandomised controlled trialsymptom management

Identifiers

PMID41236397
PMCPMC12617385

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.