Simple, low‐cost group‐counselling programme vs treatment as usual for patients with newly notified occupational hand eczema—Exploratory analyses of effects on knowledge, behaviour and personal resources of the randomized PREVEX clinical trial

Background Sickness absence in hand eczema patients has been associated with stress rather than disease severity, indicating that personal aspects regarding hand eczema should be investigated further. Objectives To examine whether patient education vs treatment as usual can influence behaviour and k...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Contact dermatitis 2018-09, Vol.79 (3), p.127-135
Hauptverfasser: Fisker, Maja H., Agner, Tove, Sørensen, Jennifer A., Vejlstrup, Søren G., Lindschou, Jane, Gluud, Christian, Winkel, Per, Bonde, Jens P., Ebbehøj, Niels E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Sickness absence in hand eczema patients has been associated with stress rather than disease severity, indicating that personal aspects regarding hand eczema should be investigated further. Objectives To examine whether patient education vs treatment as usual can influence behaviour and knowledge regarding skin protection and care, as well as personal resources, in patients with occupational hand eczema. Methods PREVEX is an individually randomized clinical trial investigating the 1‐year effects of a simple, low‐cost group‐counselling programme vs treatment as usual for patients with notified occupational hand eczema. Exploratory outcomes were behaviour, knowledge, self‐efficacy, and self‐evaluated skin care ability. Results In total, 1668 patients with notified occupational skin disease were invited to participate, of whom 769 were randomized and 756 were analysed: intervention group (n = 376) vs control group (n = 380). Behaviour was improved and the knowledge score increased in the intervention group as compared with the control group (respectively: estimate 0.08; 95%CI: 0.02‐0.19; P = .01; and estimate 0.49; 95%CI: 0.28‐0.70; P 
ISSN:0105-1873
1600-0536
DOI:10.1111/cod.13003