Cited by 42Chronic Disease Management StrategiesDiabetes Management and EducationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Effectiveness of personalised support for self-management in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Eikelenboom, Nathalie, van Lieshout, Jan, Jacobs, Annelies, Verhulst, Frank, Lacroix, Joyca, van Halteren, Aart, Klomp, Maarten, Smeele, Ivo +1 more·2016·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is an important component of the clinical management of many chronic conditions. The validated Self-Management Screening questionnaire (SeMaS) assesses individual characteristics that influence a patient's ability to self-manage. AIM: To assess the effect of providing personalised self-management support in clinical practice on patients' activation and health-related behaviours. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 15 primary care group practices in the south of the Netherlands. METHOD: After attending a dedicated self-management support training session, practice nurses in the intervention arm discussed the results of SeMaS with the patient at baseline, and tailored the self-management support. Participants completed a 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) and validated lifestyle questionnaires at baseline and after 6 months. Data, including individual care plans, referrals to self-management interventions, self-monitoring, and healthcare use, were extracted from patients' medical records. Multilevel multiple regression was used to assess the effect on outcomes. RESULTS: The PAM-13 score did not differ significantly between the control (n = 348) and intervention (n = 296) arms at 6 months. In the intervention arm, 29.4% of the patients performed self-monitoring, versus 15.2% in the control arm (effect size r = 0.9, P = 0.01). In the per protocol analysis (control n = 348; intervention n = 136), the effect of the intervention was significant on the number of individual care plans (effect size r = 1.3, P = 0.04) and on self-monitoring (effect size r = 1.0, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study showed that discussing SeMaS and offering tailored support did not affect patient activation or lifestyle, but did stimulate patients to self-monitor and use individual care plans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp16x684985

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eikelenboom, N., van Lieshout, J., Jacobs, A., Verhulst, F., Lacroix, J., van Halteren, A., Klomp, M., Smeele, I., & Wensing, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2016-04-14
Volume
66
Issue
646
Pages
e354-e361
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2340542514
Cited by
42
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
self-management support, individualized support, chronic disease, patient activation, Patient Activation Measure, self-monitoring, individualized care plans, practice nurses, lifestyle habits, primary care, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Clinical Protocols, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Netherlands, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Social Support, Health Behavior, Risk Reduction Behavior, Precision Medicine

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