ArticleImplementation science : IS2010
Part I, patient perspective: activating patients to engage their providers in the use of evidence-based medicine: a qualitative evaluation of the VA Project to Implement Diuretics (VAPID).
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00265538 (Implementing Evidence-based Treatment of Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Implementing Evidence-based Treatment of Hypertension
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review.Systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Efficacy of Patient Activation Interventions With or Without Financial Incentives to Promote Prescribing of Thiazides and Hypertension Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2018Trial
- Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2016Trial
- "All the money in the world …" patient perspectives regarding the influence of financial incentives.Health services research · 2011Trial
- Why physicians do not prescribe a thiazide diuretic.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2010Trial
- Developing a bone mineral density test result letter to send to patients: a mixed-methods study.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Article
- Distance is relative: unpacking a principal barrier in rural healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
- Part II, provider perspectives: should patients be activated to request evidence-based medicine? A qualitative study of the VA project to implement diuretics (VAPID).Implementation science : IS · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis qualitative evaluation follows a randomized-control trial of a patient activation intervention in which hypertensive patients received a letter in the mail asking them to discuss thiazide diuretics with their provider. Results of the parent study indicated that the intervention was effective at facilitating discussions between patients and providers and enhancing thiazide prescribing rates. In the research presented here, our objective was to interview patients to determine their receptivity to patient activation, a potential leverage point for implementing interventions.
methodsSemi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 54 patients, purposefully sampled from a randomized controlled trial of a patient activation intervention. All subjects had a history of hypertension and received primary care from one of twelve Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the interviewer. Interviews were independently coded by three qualitative researchers until consensus was attained, and relevant themes and responses were identified, grouped, and compared. NVivo 8.0 was used for data management and analysis.
resultsData from this qualitative study revealed that most participants held favorable opinions toward the patient activation intervention used in the clinical trial. Most (82%) stated they had a positive reaction. Patients emphasized they liked the intervention because it was straightforward and encouraged them to initiate discussions with their provider. Also, by being active participants in their healthcare, patients felt more invested. Of the few patients offering negative feedback (11%), their main concern was discomfort with possibly challenging their providers' healthcare practices. Another outcome of interest was the patients' perceptions of why they were or were not prescribed a thiazide diuretic, for which several clinically relevant reasons were provided.
conclusionPatients' perceptions of the intervention indicated it was effective via the encouragement of dialogue between themselves and their provider regarding evidence-based treatment options for hypertension. Additionally, patients' experiences with thiazide prescribing discussions shed light on the facilitators and barriers to implementing clinical practice guidelines regarding thiazides as first-line therapy for hypertension.
trial registrationNational Clinical Trial Registry number NCT00265538.
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.