Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21439047›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2011

Improvement of primary care for patients with chronic heart failure: a study protocol for a cluster randomised trial comparing two strategies.

Jan van Lieshout, Betty Steenkamer, Marjan Knippenberg, Michel Wensing

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Disease management interventions for heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan van LieshoutScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P,O, Box 9101, 114 IQ Healthcare, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. j.vanlieshout@iq.umcn.nl
Betty Steenkamer
Marjan Knippenberg
Michel Wensing
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRobuust · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a common condition with high morbidity and mortality rates, receive treatment in primary care. To improve the management of CHF in primary care, we developed an implementation programme comprised of educational and organisational components, with support by a practice visitor and focus both on drug treatment and lifestyle advice, and on organisation of care within the practice and collaboration with other healthcare providers. Tailoring has been shown to improve the success of implementation programmes, but little is known about what would be best methods for tailoring, specifically with respect to CHF in primary care. METHODS/

designWe describe the study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of tailoring a CHF implementation programme to general practices compared to a standardised way of delivering a programme. The study population will consist of 60 general practitioners (GPs) and the CHF patients they include. GPs are randomised in blocks of four, stratified according to practice size. With a tailored implementation programme GPs prioritise the issues that will form the bases of the support for the practice visits. These may comprise several issues, both educational and organizational.The primary outcome measures are patient's experience of receiving structured primary care for CHF (PACIC, a questionnaire related to the Chronic Care Model), patients' health-related utilities (EQ-5D), and drugs prescriptions using the guideline adherence index. Patients being clustered in practices, multilevel regression analyses will be used to explore the effect of practice size and type of intervention programme. In addition we will examine both changes within groups and differences at follow-up between groups with respect to drug dosages and advice on lifestyle issues. Furthermore, in interviews the feasibility of the programme and goal attainment, organisational changes in CHF care, and formalised cooperation with other disciplines will be assessed. DISCUSSION: In the tailoring of the programme we will present the GPs a list with barriers; GPs will assess relevance and possibility to solve these barriers. The list is rigorously developed and tested in various projects. The factors for ordering the barriers are related to the innovation, the healthcare professional, the patient, and the context.CHF patients do not form a homogeneous group. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the distinction between systolic CHF and CHF with preserved left ventricular function (diastolic CHF).

trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN18812755.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsChronic DiseaseFemaleGuideline AdherenceHeart FailureHumansLife StyleMaleNetherlandsPrimary Health CareProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationQuality of LifeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID21439047
PMCPMC3072349
OpenAlexW2154810811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.