Evidence mapPaperPMID 39533053Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

The effects of a digital health intervention on patient activation in chronic kidney disease.

Courtney J Lightfoot, Thomas J Wilkinson, Gurneet K Sohansoha, Clare L Gillies, Noemi Vadaszy, Ella C Ford, Melanie J Davies, Thomas Yates, Alice C Smith, Matthew P M Graham-Brown and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Courtney J LightfootLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. courtney.lightfoot@leicester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5855-4159
Thomas J WilkinsonLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Gurneet K SohansohaLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Clare L GilliesLeicester Real World Evidence Unit, Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester, UK.
Noemi VadaszyLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Ella C FordLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Melanie J DaviesNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9987-9371
Thomas YatesNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Alice C SmithLeicester Kidney Lifestyle Team, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Matthew P M Graham-BrownDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
SMILE-K collaborators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

My Kidneys & Me (MK&M), a digital health intervention delivering specialist health and lifestyle education for people with CKD, was developed and its effects tested (SMILE-K trial, ISRCTN18314195, 18/12/2020). 420 adult patients with CKD stages 3-4 were recruited and randomised 2:1 to intervention (MK&M) (n = 280) or control (n = 140) groups. Outcomes, including Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13), were collected at baseline and 20 weeks. Complete case (CC) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted. 210 (75%) participants used MK&M more than once. PAM-13 increased at 20 weeks compared to control (CC: +3.1 (95%CI: -0.2 to 6.4), P = 0.065; PP: +3.6 (95%CI: 0.2 to 7.0), P = 0.041). In those with low activation at baseline, significant between-group differences were observed (CC: +6.6 (95%CI: 1.3 to 11.9), P = 0.016; PP: +9.2 (95%CI: 4.0 to 14.6), P < 0.001) favouring MK&M group. MK&M improved patient activation in those who used the resource compared to standard care, although the overall effect was non-significant. The greatest benefits were seen in those with low activation.

Identifiers

PMID39533053
PMCPMC11558007

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.