Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42098763›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2026

Implementing a primary care disease management concept for venous leg ulceration: findings of a mixed-methods process evaluation in the Ulcus Cruris Care trial.

Regina Poß-Doering, Thomas Fleischhauer, Nina Sander, Gunter Laux, Michel Wensing, Joachim Szecsenyi, Jonas D Senft

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Regina Poß-DoeringMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. regina.poss-doering@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Thomas FleischhauerMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nina SanderMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Gunter LauxMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michel WensingMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Joachim SzecsenyiMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jonas D SenftMedical Faculty, University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare analyses show that evidence-based measures such as compression therapy and promotion of mobility are rarely implemented in treatment of Venous leg ulcers. The Ulcus Cruris Care project developed a disease- management approach to support evidence-based venous leg ulcer treatment in general practices. This included online training and three e-learning modules for practice teams, software-supported case management, involvement of non-physician assistants, and promotion of patient activation and education. The intervention program was implemented within a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Ulcus Cruris Care). A mixed-methods process evaluation explored intervention fidelity and perceived effects to identify improvement potential.

methodsThe cross-sectional process evaluation design applied semi-structured guide-based qualitative telephone interviews and a study-specific survey to evaluate the implementation process of the program.

resultsN = 38 survey questionnaires were completed and n = 27 interviews were conducted (n = 10 general practitioners, n = 10 non-physician assistants, n = 7 patients). Findings indicate high intervention fidelity regarding completion of the online training (100%), the e-learning modules (between 61% and 48%), application of standard operating procedures (100%), patient education material (91%), and case management software (91%). Practice teams and patients positively perceived the role of non-physician assistants as case managers and their involvement in wound treatment and patient education. Overall, the program was perceived as effective in promoting change in treatment routines, particularly the regular use of compression therapy as the most effective treatment measure, improving patient and practice team education, and ultimately, wound healing. DISCUSSION: The intervention program was expected to increase the use of compression therapy, speed up healing, and reduce the use of medical resources. Participants in this process evaluation perceived the program as supporting structured venous leg ulcer treatment, increasing relevant knowledge among practice teams and patients, and encouraging more active involvement of patients and relatives. The outcome analysis in the Ulcus Cruris Care trial strengthened these findings and suggested a potential benefit of the intervention.

conclusionPromotion of comprehensive VLU treatment and care in general practices, including a regular use of compression therapy and active patient participation as facilitated by this intervention program appears to be largely suitable for a venous leg ulcer case management approach.

trial registrationThe Ulcus Cruris Care trial protocol was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on August 30, 2021 (DRKS00026126).

Indexed as

Disease ManagementPrimary Health CareVaricose UlcerAgedCase ManagementCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedProcess Assessment, Health CareQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic woundsEducationVenous leg ulcer, case management, general practice

Identifiers

PMID42098763
PMCPMC13154889

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.