Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25209897›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2014

Implementing the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines: a mixed methods study and cluster randomised trial of a model osteoarthritis consultation in primary care--the Management of OsteoArthritis In Consultations (MOSAICS) study protocol.

Krysia S Dziedzic, Emma L Healey, Mark Porcheret, Bie Nio Ong, Chris J Main, Kelvin P Jordan, Martyn Lewis, John J Edwards, Clare Jinks, Andrew Morden and 14 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Krysia S Dziedzic
Emma L Healey
Mark Porcheret
Bie Nio Ong
Chris J Main
Kelvin P Jordan
Martyn Lewis
John J Edwards
Clare Jinks
Andrew Morden
Gretl A McHugh
Sarah Ryan
Andrew Finney
Sue Jowett
Raymond Oppong
Ebenezer Afolabi
Angela Pushpa-Rajah
June Handy
Kris Clarkson
Elizabeth Mason
Tracy Whitehurst
Rhian W Hughes
Peter R Croft
Elaine M Hay

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18139Department of Health 2008 IPF PORCHERETDepartment of Health CAT CDRF 10-018Department of Health IAT/I-PF/010/009Department of Health PDA/03/07/042Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10386Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving 'quality markers' of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain.

designA mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial.

methodThis study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive 'whole-system' evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations. DISCUSSION: The main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance.

trial registrationISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicAgedClinical ProtocolsCluster AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisEducation, Medical, ContinuingFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeHealth PersonnelHealth Plan ImplementationHumansInterview, PsychologicalMale

Identifiers

PMID25209897
PMCPMC4176866

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.