ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a randomised controlled trial of Interventions to support Patient Activation for adults on hemoDialysis: the IPAD study protocol.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient activation, defined as the knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage one’s health, is associated with better outcomes in chronic disease. However, evidence on interventions that improve activation in people with kidney failure on hemodialysis remains limited. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial conducted with adults undergoing long-term hemodialysis in an acute dialysis unit tests the hypothesis that adding tailored activation interventions to usual care improves patient activation and reduces complications in hemodialysis patients compared to usual care alone. A target sample size of 140 patients was recruited and randomised to IPAD interventions or usual care in a 1:1 ratio with an expected intervention period of at least 6 months. The primary outcome of IPAD was change in patient activation from baseline to 18 months. STUDY PROGRESS: Recruitment has been completed, with 140 participants enrolled out of 147 individuals screened. The study cohort had a mean age of 58.4 ± 14.8 years and was predominantly male (72.1%, n = 101). The leading cause of kidney failure was diabetes (41.4%, n = 58), followed by IgA nephropathy (15%, n = 21) and hypertension (7.9%, n = 11). Comorbidity burden was substantial, with 55.7% (n = 78) of participants classified as severe. The mean Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score was 61.9 (± 15.0), reflecting moderate levels of engagement in self-management at the start of the study. Of 147 individuals screened, 140 were enrolled in the study.
conclusionRecruitment and enrolment targets were successfully achieved, with the cohort broadly representative of the dialysis population, including strong participation from culturally and linguistically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. The careful planning and successful execution of the study in resource-constrained environments highlight its feasibility and flexibility, establishing it as a scalable and cost-efficient model for broad implementation in dialysis care globally.
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.