Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24716545›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2014

The effectiveness of a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention to optimise chronic care management in general practice: a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

Tina Drud Due, Thorkil Thorsen, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Volkert Dirk Siersma, Frans Boch Waldorff

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01297075 (Outreach Visits to Optimize Chronic Care Management in General Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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.

NCT01297075 nacompletednot on this map

Outreach Visits to Optimize Chronic Care Management in General Practice: A Cluster Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorResearch Unit Of General Practice, CopenhagenRan2011 to 2012Enrolled189ConditionsChronic DiseaseArmsOutreach visits
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Implementation of Coach McLungsBMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tina Drud DueThe Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. tina.due@sund.ku.dk.
Thorkil Thorsen
Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard
Volkert Dirk Siersma
Frans Boch Waldorff
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Danish health care sector is reorganising based on disease management programmes designed to secure integrated and high quality chronic care across hospitals, general practitioners and municipalities. The disease management programmes assign a central role to general practice; and in the Capital Region of Denmark a facilitator-based intervention was undertaken to support the implementation of the programmes in general practice. The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of this semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention.

methodThe study was a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention group was offered three one-hour visits by a facilitator. The intervention was semi-tailored to the perceived needs as defined by each general practice, and the practices could choose from a list of possible topics. The control group was a delayed intervention group. The primary outcome was change in the number of annual chronic disease check-ups. Secondary outcomes were: changes in the number of annual check-ups for type 2 diabetes (DM2) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); changes in the number of spirometry tests, changes in the use of ICPC diagnosis coding and patient stratification; sign-up for a software program for patient overview; and reduction in number of practices with few annual chronic disease check-ups.

resultsWe randomised 189 general practices: 96 practices were allocated to the intervention group and 93 to the delayed intervention group. For the primary outcome, 94 and 89 practices were analysed. Almost every outcome improved from baseline to follow-up in both allocation groups. At follow-up there was no difference between allocation groups for the primary outcome (p = 0.1639). However, some secondary outcomes favoured the intervention: a higher reported use of ICPC diagnosis coding for DM2 and COPD (p = 0.0050, p = 0.0243 respectively), stratification for COPD (p = 0.0185) and a faster initial sign-up rate for the software program.

conclusionThe mixed results from this study indicate that a semi-tailored facilitator-based intervention of relatively low intensity is unlikely to add substantially to the implementation of disease management programmes for DM2 and COPD in a context marked by important concurrent initiatives (including financial incentives and mandatory registry participation) aimed at moving all practices towards changes in chronic care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01297075.

Indexed as

Health Plan ImplementationProcess Assessment, Health CareChronic DiseaseDenmarkDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diagnostic Tests, RoutineDisease ManagementGeneral PracticeHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMedical AuditPhysical ExaminationPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSelf ReportSoftwareSpirometry

Identifiers

PMID24716545
PMCPMC4234362
OpenAlexW1984138314

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.