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).
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.
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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Alignment in implementation of evidence-based interventions: a scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Developing a bone mineral density test result letter to send to patients: a mixed-methods study.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Article
- Sports and exercise-related tendinopathies: a review of selected topical issues by participants of the second International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium (ISTS) Vancouver 2012.British journal of sports medicine · 2013Article
- Variations in risk perceptions: a qualitative study of why unnecessary urinary catheter use continues to be problematic.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Distance is relative: unpacking a principal barrier in rural healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2011Article
- Using patients to promote evidence-based prescribing: comment on "Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public".Archives of internal medicine · 2011Article
- 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).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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.