Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16737349›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2006

Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): economic evaluation of an intervention to improve professional practice.

Atle Fretheim, Morten Aaserud, Andrew D Oxman

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Addressing cost-related barriers to prescription drug use in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. A brief overview of academic detailing in Canada: Another role for pharmacists.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Atle FretheimNorwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, Oslo, Norway. atle.fretheim@nokc.no
Morten Aaserud
Andrew D Oxman
Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.

conclusionsWe found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.

Indexed as

Anticholesteremic AgentsAntihypertensive AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsDrug CostsDrug UtilizationFamily PracticeGuideline AdherenceHealth PromotionHumansModels, EconometricNorwayPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnticholesteremic AgentsAntihypertensive AgentsSodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID16737349
PMCPMC1472698
OpenAlexW2076415548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.