ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2014
The impact of a heart failure educational program for physicians varies based upon physician specialty.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Heart fAilure Management Program: Changing the practice by partnering primary care and specialists (CHAMP-HF).International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Optimisation of diagnosis and treatment of heart failure in a primary care setting.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeta blocker (BB) doses are often suboptimal in heart failure (HF) management. Differences in BB management patterns may exist between physicians in family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM). The aims of this study were to compare: 1) BB doses and prescription patterns; and 2) health care utilization rates in patients cared for by all primary care physicians compared to an historical control group after an educational program on HF management. A subgroup analysis was performed between patients cared for by FM and IM physicians. A secondary aim was to assess physician knowledge scores and satisfaction.
methodsA historically controlled study was conducted among low-income, underserved HF patients (mean age 54.1 ± 13.1, males 70%, mean ejection fraction 28.2 ± 9.8%). Statistical methods included linear mixed models and Fisher's exact tests to assess prescription patterns of BB dosing and health care utilization rates (all cause and HF related hospitalizations, emergency department use and clinic visits).
resultsAmong 135 patients (experimental N = 81 and control N = 54), a linear mixed model test of group by time interaction showed no difference in BB dosage (t = -0.12, P = 0.91). FM physicians prescribed significant changes in BB doses compared to IM physicians (P = 0.04), had higher numbers of clinic visits (P = 0.03) and reported greater satisfaction with the program.
conclusionsThere was no difference in BB titration rates following an HF training intervention for physicians compared to historical controls. However, FM physicians had a greater change in prescribing practices compared to IM physicians. Educational programs targeting FM physicians may benefit HF patients and could potentially lead to greater adherence to clinical guidelines related to BB use and address gaps in providing HF care.
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.