| Title |
How to best distribute written patient education materials among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of two strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3039-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
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 |
The 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. As 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). One 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). From 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. ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN22703067 ). Retrospectively registered 27 March 2017. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Librarian | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 27 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,032,255
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,829
of 7,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,886
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#75
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.