Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 184

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving Patient Function: A Randomized Trial of Functional Disability Screening

Rubenstein, Lisa V., Calkins, David R., Young, Roy T., Cleary, Paul D., Fink, Arlene, Kosecoff, Jacqueline, Jette, Alan M., Davies, Allyson R., Delbanco, Thomas L., Brook, Robert H.·1989·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To test whether a 34-item functional status questionnaire measuring physical, psychological, and social function can be used by physicians in practice to help improve their patients' outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Community internal medicine practices. PATIENTS: Five hundred and ten continuing patients with functional disabilities who saw their physicians at least four times a year. PHYSICIANS: Seventy-six UCLA clinical volunteer faculty who are internists in community office practices. INTERVENTIONS: Physicians and their patients were randomly assigned to the experimental or the control group. Experimental group physicians attended a 2-hour multimedia educational session and received four functional status reports on each of their study patients over a 1-year period. Control group physicians received no education and no functional status feedback. Control group and experimental group patients were tested for functional status with the functional status questionnaire every 4 months for 1 year. Both groups also completed monthly diaries that measured use of health services. Experimental group physicians answered an anonymous evaluation questionnaire at 6 months after study entry. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three percent of experimental group physicians reported that they had used the functional status questionnaire to change therapy. Ninety-five percent reported that it was useful and accurate. Patient diaries did not show any difference between experimental group patients and control group patients in number of medications used, visits to physicians or other health professionals, equipment purchased, diet, or exercise programs. There were no significant differences between experimental and control group patients at exit from the study on any functional status or health outcome measure. CONCLUSION: A more powerful intervention than a 2-hour educational session and the regular provision of functional status information is needed to help office-based internists improve patient outcomes.

Overview

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-111-10-836

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 184

Metadata

Authors
Rubenstein, L. V., Calkins, D. R., Young, R. T., Cleary, P. D., Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Jette, A. M., Davies, A. R., Delbanco, T. L., & Brook, R. H.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1989-11-15
Volume
111
Issue
10
Pages
836-842
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2054764830
Cited by
184
References
0
FWCI
30.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving Patient Function: A Randomized Trial of Functional Disability Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-111-10-836
The paper
Rubenstein, L. V., Calkins, D. R., Young, R. T., Cleary, P. D., Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Jette, A. M., Davies, A. R., Delbanco, T. L., & Brook, R. H. (1989). Improving Patient Function: A Randomized Trial of Functional Disability Screening. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-111-10-836

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.