Trial reportBMC family practice2007
Practice development plans to improve the primary care management of acute asthma: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC family practice, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring the content and delivery of feedback facilitation co-interventions: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback.Implementation science : IS · 2013Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Article
- Healthcare resources, organisational support and practice in asthma in six public health clinics in Malaysia.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- ERS/EAACI statement on adherence to international adult asthma guidelines.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2021Article
- Clinical performance comparators in audit and feedback: a review of theory and evidence.Implementation science : IS · 2019Review
- Stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial designs: a review of reporting quality and design features.Trials · 2017Review
- Protocol for the asthma tools study: a pragmatic practice-based research network trial.Pragmatic and observational research · 2013Article
- Effecting change in primary care management of respiratory conditions: a global scoping exercise and literature review of educational interventions to inform the IPCRG's E-Quality initiative.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2012Review
- Designing a multifaceted quality improvement intervention in primary care in a country where general practice is seeking recognition: the case of Cyprus.BMC health services research · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur professional development plan aimed to improve the primary care management of acute asthma, which is known to be suboptimal.
methodsWe invited 59 general practices in Grampian, Scotland to participate. Consenting practices were randomised to early and delayed intervention groups. Practices undertook audits of their management of all acute attacks (excluding children under 5 years) occurring in the 3 months preceding baseline, 6-months and 12-months study time-points. The educational programme [including feedback of audit results, attendance at a multidisciplinary interactive workshop, and formulation of development plan by practice teams] was delivered to the early group at baseline and to the delayed group at 6 months. Primary outcome measure was recording of peak flow compared to best/predicted at 6 months. Analyses are presented both with, and without adjustment for clustering.
results23 consenting practices were randomised: 11 to early intervention. Baseline practice demography was similar. Six early intervention practices withdraw before completing the baseline audit. There was no significant improvement in our primary outcome measure (the proportion with peak flow compared to best/predicted) at either the 6 or 12 month time points after adjustment for baseline and practice effects. However, the between group difference in the adjusted combined assessment score, whilst non-significant at 6 months (Early: 2.48 (SE 0.43) vs. Delayed 2.26 (SE 0.33) p = 0.69) reached significance at 12 m (Early:3.60 (SE 0.35) vs. Delayed 2.30 (SE 0.28) p = 0.02).
conclusionWe demonstrated no significant benefit at the a priori 6-month assessment point, though improvement in the objective assessment of attacks was shown after 12 months. Our practice development programme, incorporating audit, feedback and a workshop, successfully engaged the healthcare team of participating practices, though future randomised trials of educational interventions need to recognise that effecting change in primary care practices takes time. Monitoring of the assessment of acute attacks proved to be a feasible and responsive indicator of quality care.
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.