ArticleBMC public health2003
Implementing guidelines in primary care: can population impact measures help?
Article in BMC public health, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population impact of a high cardiovascular risk management program delivered by village doctors in rural China: design and rationale of a large, cluster-randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2014Trial
- Risk of functional disability associated with solid fuel use and population impact of reducing indoor air pollution in China: A national cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal.BMC medicine · 2017Article
- The use of epidemiological measures to estimate the impact of primary prevention interventions on CHD, stroke and cancer outcomes: experiences from Herefordshire, UK.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2012Article
- Estimating the population impact of screening strategies for identifying and treating people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: modelling study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Article
- What are the benefits of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's Disease: use of Population Impact Measures.BMC geriatrics · 2007Article
- Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: use of population impact measures.BMC medicine · 2006Article
- Potential population impact of the UK government strategy for reducing the burden of coronary heart disease in England: comparing primary and secondary prevention strategies.Quality & safety in health care · 2006Article
- Helping to prioritise interventions for depression and schizophrenia: use of Population Impact Measures.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2006Article
- Population impact of stricter adherence to recommendations for pharmacological and lifestyle interventions over one year in patients with coronary heart disease.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2005Article
- Will changes in primary care improve health outcomes? Modelling the impact of financial incentives introduced to improve quality of care in the UK.Quality & safety in health care · 2004Article
- Assessing the impact of heart failure specialist services on patient populations.BMC health services research · 2004Article
- Communicating risks at the population level: application of population impact numbers.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care organisations are faced with implementing a large number of guideline recommendations. We present methods by which the number of eligible patients requiring treatment, and the relative benefits to the whole population served by a general practice or Primary Care Trust, can be calculated to help prioritise between different guideline recommendations.
methodsWe have developed measures of population impact, "Number to be Treated in your Population (NTP)" and "Number of Events Prevented in your Population (NEPP)". Using literature-based estimates, we have applied these measures to guidelines for pharmacological methods of secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) for a hypothetical general practice population of 10,000.
resultsImplementation of the NICE guidelines for the secondary prevention of MI will require 176 patients to be treated with aspirin, 147 patients with beta-blockers and with ACE-Inhibitors and 157 patients with statins (NTP). The benefit expressed as NEPP will range from 1.91 to 2.96 deaths prevented per year for aspirin and statins respectively. The drug cost per year varies from euro 1940 for aspirin to euro 60,525 for statins. Assuming incremental changes only (for those not already on treatment), aspirin post MI will be added for 37 patients and produce 0.40 of a death prevented per year at a drug cost of euro 410 and statins will be added for 120 patients and prevent 2.26 deaths per year at a drug cost of euro 46,150. An appropriate policy might be to reserve the use of statins until eligible patients have been established on aspirin, ACE-Inhibitors and beta blockers.
conclusionsThe use of population impact measures could help the Primary Care Organisation to prioritise resource allocation, although the results will vary according to local conditions which should be taken into account before the measures are used in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.