Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29580277›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2018

How to best distribute written patient education materials among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of two strategies.

Aniek A O M Claassen, Cornelia H M van den Ende, Jorit J L Meesters, Sanne Pellegrom, Brigitte M Kaarls-Ohms, Jacoba Vooijs, Gerardine E M P Willemsen-de Mey, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland

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

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Aniek A O M ClaassenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Cornelia H M van den EndeDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e.vandenende@maartenskliniek.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4352-2824
Jorit J L MeestersDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sanne PellegromDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Brigitte M Kaarls-OhmsPatient Research Partner, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jacoba VooijsPatient Research Partner, Katwijk, The Netherlands.
Gerardine E M P Willemsen-de MeyPatient Research Partner, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thea P M Vliet VlielandDepartment of Orthopedics, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

Reumafonds IMP12-1-260
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of a 'supply on demand'-distribution strategy, compared to an 'unsolicited supply'-distribution strategy, on the use of a care booklet and clinical outcomes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition, differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between users and non-users were explored.

methodsAs part of regular care the care booklet was distributed among RA-patients of two hospitals in the Netherlands. 1000 patients received the care booklet by mail, whereas another 1000 received an information letter with the option to order the care booklet. Four months after distribution, a random sample of 810 patients (stratified by hospital and distribution method) received a questionnaire on the use of the booklet, social-demographic and clinical characteristics. To compare effects between the two distribution strategies and differences between users and non-users univariate and multilevel regression analyses were performed. Secondary analysis included a per-protocol analysis (excluding participants who did not order the care booklet).

resultsOne hundred ninety four patients in the 'unsolicited supply' and 176 patients in the 'supply on demand' group (46%) returned the questionnaire. In the 'supply on demand' group 106 (60.2%) participants ordered the care booklet. In total, no difference was found in use between the 'unsolicited supply'-group (23.2%) and the 'supply on demand'-group (21.6%) (OR 0.9 CI:0.6-1.5). However, the proportion of users among patients in the 'supply on demand'-group who ordered the booklet (35%) was significantly higher than in the 'unsolicited supply'-group (OR 1.9 CI:1.1-3.2). Regardless of distribution method, use of the care booklet was associated with being married (OR 2.4 CI:1.2-4.6), higher disease activity (mean difference 0.5 CI: 0.0-1.1), more activity limitations (mean difference 0.2 CI: 0.1-0.4), use of corticosteroids (OR 1.9 CI:1.0-3.5), perception of disease course as fluctuating (mean difference 1.4 CI:0.5-2.3) and higher educational needs (mean difference 9.7 CI: 2.9-16.6).

conclusionsFrom an economic and environmental perspective a 'supply on demand'-distribution strategy could be recommended. Results of this study provide starting points to optimize further implementation strategies of a care-booklet in routine care.

trial registrationISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN22703067 ). Retrospectively registered 27 March 2017.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicTeaching MaterialsAgedArthritis, RheumatoidFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPamphletsSurveys and QuestionnairesDisseminationDistribution strategyPatient educationRheumatoid arthritisSelf-management

Identifiers

PMID29580277
PMCPMC5870684

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.