Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19587068›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2009

Getting clinical trial results into practice: design, implementation, and process evaluation of the ALLHAT Dissemination Project.

L Kay Bartholomew, William C Cushman, Jeffrey A Cutler, Barry R Davis, Glenna Dawson, Paula T Einhorn, James F Graumlich, Linda B Piller, Sara Pressel, Edward J Roccella and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Planning theory- and evidence-based behavior change interventions: a conceptual review of the intervention mapping protocol.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2017
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

L Kay BartholomewUniversity of Texas Health Science Center - Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA.
William C Cushman
Jeffrey A Cutler
Barry R Davis
Glenna Dawson
Paula T Einhorn
James F Graumlich
Linda B Piller
Sara Pressel
Edward J Roccella
Lara Simpson
Paul K Whelton
Angela Williard
Allhat Collaborative Research Group
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute · USLoyola University Medical Center · USTulane University · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

CLINICAL TRIALS CENTER FOR ALLHAT-N01HC35130-268035130N01HC035130 · HC · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · 1993 to 2005
$6.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS N01 HC035130NHLBI NIH HHS N01-HC-35130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional dissemination of clinical trial results has inconsistent impact on physician practices. A more comprehensive plan to influence determinants of prescribing practices is warranted. PURPOSE: To report the response from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's requirement for dissemination and evaluation of trials with potential immediate public health applicability.

methodsALLHAT's dissemination plan had two-components: (1) a traditional approach of media coverage, scientific presentation, and publication; and (2) a theory-based approach targeting determinants of clinician behavior. Strategies included: (1) academic detailing, in which physicians approach colleagues regarding blood pressure management, (2) direct patient messages to stimulate communication with physicians regarding blood pressure control, (3) approaches to formulary systems to use educational and economic incentives for evidence-based prescription, and (4) direct professional organization appeals to clinicians.

resultsOne hundred and forty-seven Investigator Educators reported 1698 presentations to 18,524 clinicians in 41 states and the District of Columbia. The pre- and post-test responses of 1709 clinicians in the face-to-face meetings indicated significant changes in expectations for positive patient outcomes and intention to prescribe diuretics. Information was mailed to 55 individuals representing 20 professional organizations and to eight formulary systems. Direct-to-patient messages were provided to 14 sites that host patient newsletters and Web sites such as health plans and insurance companies, 62 print mass media outlets, and 12 broadcast media sites. LIMITATIONS: It was not within the scope of the project to conduct a randomized trial of the impact of the dissemination. However, impact evaluation using quasi-experimental designs is ongoing.

conclusionA large multi-method dissemination of clinical trial results is feasible. Planning for dissemination efforts, including evaluation research, should be considered as a part of the funding and design of the clinical trial and should begin early in trial planning.

Indexed as

Program DevelopmentBlood PressureClinical Trials as TopicData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalDistrict of ColumbiaEvidence-Based MedicineFeasibility StudiesHumansProgram EvaluationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19587068
PMCPMC2897824
OpenAlexW1997699641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.