ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2012
A tool for evaluating the potential for cost-effective outcomes measurement.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cost related to higher-level outcomes measurement is often very high. However, the cost burden is felt even more by smaller, less well-funded continuing medical education (CME) programs. It is possible to overcome financial and participant-related barriers to measuring Level 6 outcomes, which are patient health outcomes. The Temple University School of Medicine's Office for Continuing Medical Education developed a sequential tool for attaining cost-effective outcomes measurement for determining the likelihood of a CME intervention to produce significant changes in physician performance. The appropriate selection of the CME topic and specific practice change indictors drive this tool. This tool walks providers through a simple YES or NO decision-making list that guides them toward an accurate prediction of potential programmatic outcomes. Factors considered during the decision-making process include whether: (a) the intended change(s) will have a substantial impact on current practice; (b) the intended practice change(s) are well supported by clinical data, specialty organization/government recommendations, expert opinion, etc; (c) the potential change(s) affects a large population; (d) external factors, such as system pressures, media pressures, financial pressures, patient pressures, safety pressures, etc, are driving this intended change in performance; (e) there is a strong motivation on the part of physicians to implement the intended change(s); and (f) the intended change(s) is relatively easy to implement within any system of practice. If each of these questions can be responded to positively, there is a higher likelihood that the intended practice-related change(s) will occur. Such change can be measured using a simpler and less costly methodology.
Indexed as
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.