Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25155998›Full record

Trial reportResearch in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP

Instrumental variable methods to assess quality of care the marginal effects of process-of-care on blood pressure change and treatment costs.

Puttarin Kulchaitanaroaj, Barry L Carter, Amber M Goedken, Elizabeth A Chrischilles, John M Brooks

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Puttarin KulchaitanaroajDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. Electronic address: puttarin@gmail.com.
Barry L CarterDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Amber M GoedkenDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Elizabeth A ChrischillesDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
John M BrooksDepartment of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, Center for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

Funding

Improving Adherence to Blood Pressure GuidelinesR01HL070740 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CARTER, BARRY L · 2003 to 2007
$3.2M
Collaborative Management of HypertensionR01HL069801 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CARTER, BARRY L · 2003 to 2005
$2.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL069801NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL070740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertension is poorly controlled. Team-based care and changes in the process of care have been proposed to address these quality problems. However, assessing care processes is difficult because they are often confounded even in randomized behavioral studies by unmeasured confounders based on discretion of health care providers.

objectiveTo evaluate the effects of process measures including number of counseling sessions about lifestyle modification and number of antihypertensive medications on blood pressure change and payer-perspective treatment costs.

methodsData were obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials (Trial A and B) implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions compared with usual care over six months in community-based medical offices in the Midwest. Multivariate linear regression models with both instrumental variable methods and as-treated methods were utilized. Instruments were indicators for trial and study arms. Models of blood pressure change and costs included both process measures, demographic variables, and clinical variables.

resultsThe analysis included 496 subjects. As-treated methods showed no significant associations between process and outcomes. The instruments used in the study were insufficient to simultaneously identify distinct process effects. However, the post-hoc instrumental variable models including one process measure at a time while controlling for the other process demonstrated significant associations between the processes and outcomes with estimates considerably larger than as-treated estimates.

conclusionsInstrumental variable methods with combined randomized behavioral studies may be useful to evaluate the effects of different care processes. However, substantial distinct process variation across studies is needed to fully capitalize on this approach. Instrumental variable methods focusing on individual processes provided larger and stronger outcome relationships than those found using as-treated methods which are subject to confounding.

Indexed as

Life StyleAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCooperative BehaviorCounselingDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansHypertensionLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPharmacistsAntihypertensive AgentsBlood pressure reductionCostsHypertensionInstrumental variable methodsProcess of care

Identifiers

PMID25155998
PMCPMC5774669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.