Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20298564›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2010

Part II, provider perspectives: should patients be activated to request evidence-based medicine? A qualitative study of the VA project to implement diuretics (VAPID).

Colin D Buzza, Monica B Williams, Mark W Vander Weg, Alan J Christensen, Peter J Kaboli, Heather Schacht Reisinger

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

NCT00265538 nacompletednot on this map

Implementing Evidence-based Treatment of Hypertension

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2006 to 2009Enrolled834ConditionsHypertensionArmsPatient educational letter to engage provider in hypertension rx discussion, Financial incentive (Arms B and C) and health educator phone call (Arm C)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Colin D BuzzaThe Center for Research in the Implementation of Innovative Strategies in Practice (CRIISP), Iowa City VA Medical Center, 601 Highway 6 West, Mail Stop 152, Iowa City, IA, 52246-2208, USA.
Monica B Williams
Mark W Vander Weg
Alan J Christensen
Peter J Kaboli
Heather Schacht Reisinger
Iowa City VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension guidelines recommend the use of thiazide diuretics as first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension, yet diuretics are under-prescribed, and hypertension is frequently inadequately treated. This qualitative evaluation of provider attitudes follows a randomized controlled trial of a patient activation strategy in which hypertensive patients received letters and incentives to discuss thiazides with their provider. The strategy prompted high discussion rates and enhanced thiazide-prescribing rates. Our objective was to interview providers to understand the effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention from their perspective, as well as the suitability of patient activation for more widespread guideline implementation.

methodsSemi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 21 primary care providers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the interviewer before being analyzed for content. Interviews were coded, and relevant themes and specific responses were identified, grouped, and compared.

resultsOf the 21 providers interviewed, 20 (95%) had a positive opinion of the intervention, and 18 of 20 (90%) thought the strategy was suitable for wider use. In explaining their opinions of the intervention, many providers discussed a positive effect on treatment, but they more often focused on the process of patient activation itself, describing how the intervention facilitated discussions by informing patients and making them more pro-active. Regarding effectiveness, providers suggested the intervention worked like a reminder, highlighted oversights, or changed their approach to hypertension management. Many providers also explained that the intervention 'aligned' patients' objectives with theirs, or made patients more likely to accept a change in medications. Negative aspects were mentioned infrequently, but concerns about the use of financial incentives were most common. Relevant barriers to initiating thiazide treatment included a hesitancy to switch medications if the patient was at or near goal blood pressure on a different anti-hypertensive.

conclusionsPatient activation was acceptable to providers as a guideline implementation strategy, with considerable value placed on the activation process itself. By 'aligning' patients' objectives with those of their providers, this process also facilitated part of the effectiveness of the intervention. Patient activation shows promise for wider use as an implementation strategy, and should be tested in other areas of evidence-based medicine.

trial registrationNational Clinical Trial Registry number NCT00265538.

Identifiers

PMID20298564
PMCPMC2856519
OpenAlexW1987023400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.