Cited by 24Hemophilia Treatment and ResearchMedication Adherence and ComplianceTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

A feasibility study on two tailored interventions to improve adherence in adults with haemophilia

Open access
Hoefnagels, J. W., Fischer, K., Bos, R. A. T., Driessens, M. H. E., Meijer, S. L. A., Schutgens, R. E. G., Schrijvers, L. H.·2020·Pilot and Feasibility Studies

Abstract

Introduction: Haemophilia is a congenital bleeding disorder mainly affecting males. To prevent bleeding, patients need to perform regular intravenous injections (prophylaxis) throughout life. Non-adherence often occurs. Problems with acceptance or self-management appear to be the main reasons for non-adherence in haemophilia. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and effects of two interventions focussed on acceptance (face-to-face) and self-management (online). Methods: Patients with severe haemophilia and acceptance or self-management problems were eligible. The face-to-face group intervention was based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (8 sessions/6 months, target N= 8 participants). The online intervention was based on a successful online programme in rheumatoid arthritis (5–8 modules/2 months, target N= 8). Both interventions were designed according to the MRC framework in collaboration with the patient society and experts. We compared adherence (VERITAS-Pro, optimum 0), quality of life (SF-36, optimum 100) and illness perception (BIPQ, optimum 0) before start (T0) and after 2 months (T2). Feasibility criteria were as follows: completion of training by > 50% of participants and ability to collect at least 80% of outcome parameters. Results: The face-to-face intervention was feasible (89% enrolment and recruitment, 100% retention). One hundred percent of the outcome parameters was collected. Results were promising: although adherence (VERITAS-Pro) was stable (from 64 to 62 points), quality of life (SF-36) showed a clinically relevant improvement (> 5 points) in five of eight domains. Illness perception (BIPQ) showed a clinically relevant increase from 47 to 39 points. Patient evaluation was positive. The online intervention, however, was infeasible: enrolment was only 20% (6/30). Only three patients signed informed consent (recruitment 10%), and none completed more than one module (retention 0%). Consequently, the online intervention was terminated. Conclusion: The face-to-face acceptance intervention was considered feasible with promising results. Unfortunately, the online intervention was infeasible and therefore terminated. These findings suggest that adapting effective interventions to other settings does not guarantee success, despite the use of established methodology and patient participation. Population differences (only male participants, congenital disease) could be an explanation for failure of the online intervention in haemophilia despite success in rheumatoid arthritis. Trial registration: NL55883.041.16

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40814-020-00723-w

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoefnagels, J. W., Fischer, K., Bos, R. A. T., Driessens, M. H. E., Meijer, S. L. A., Schutgens, R. E. G., & Schrijvers, L. H.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Netherlands Haemophilia Society (NL)
  • University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
Hoefnagels, J. W.
Venue
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Published
2020-12
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
189-189
ISSN
2055-5784 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109965933
Cited by
24
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pilot and Feasibility Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (80-83600-98-3095)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Hemophilia Treatment and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
hemophilia, medication adherence, prophylaxis, acceptance and commitment therapy, online intervention, self-management, illness perception, quality of life, feasibility, patient participation, MRC framework, intervention adaptation, patient-centered care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review