ArticleRheumatology international2025
The advocacy effect: a grounded theory study on the inclusion of caregivers or nearest support persons in research to better understand patient outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo apply grounded theory to generate a substantive theory that explains the roles adopted by caregivers or nearest support persons (CoNSP) and their added value when included as patient advocates in long-term outcomes research in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsA cross-national and multi-language qualitative research study, part of an ongoing project by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. The data collection was carried out from March 2018 to February 2019. Initially, four participants from the United States were selected. However, after examining the data we realized that adding the CoNSP as patient advocates might be useful to gain a wider understanding. Therefore, participants were contacted again and asked if they could identify a CoNSP to participate in the study. In addition, participants from Spain and Italy with their CoNSP were included. A total of 16 interviews were conducted (eight pairs composed of a person with RA and his/her CoNSP). To generate theory, the Glaser and Straus grounded theory approach was applied.
resultsWe developed The Advocacy Effect Theory which is formed by the core category Vision which is a three-dimensional category: (i) Sharing the same viewpoint - people with RA and their CoNSP share the same viewpoint on the issues addressed, (ii) Expanding the viewpoint - people with RA and their CoNSP contributed information about the same issues, but the CoNSP provided more detailed insights on some of the topics previously shared by the person with RA, and (iii) A new viewpoint - the CoNSP provide original information about issues or topics that were not previously informed by the person with RA. This theory explains the roles of CoNSP and their added value when included as patient advocates in long-term outcomes research in RA.
conclusionsThe Advocacy Effect Theory showed that CoNSP should be included in outcomes research as patient advocates. Their knowledge and contributions are dynamic, adding value by providing access to data that might not otherwise be accessible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40779031What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.