ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
A cardiovascular educational intervention for primary care professionals in Spain: positive impact in a quasi-experimental study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequential exploratory mixed-method research of an eHealth intervention on blood pressure, sleep quality and physical activity in obstructive sleep apnoea: rationale and methodology of the Moore4Medical trial protocol.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- The Impact of an Educational Intervention on Enhancing Clinical Knowledge of Physicians and Pharmacists Regarding Statins and Monitoring Parameters: The Experience of a Tertiary Teaching Hospital.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Characterizing Diagnostic Inertia in Arterial Hypertension With a Gender Perspective in Primary Care.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Health checks and screening: what works in general practice?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine general practice data collection can help identify patients at risk of cardiovascular disease.
aimTo determine whether a training programme for primary care professionals improves the recording of cardiovascular disease risk factors in electronic health records. DESIGN AND
settingA quasi-experimental study without random assignment of professionals. This was an educational intervention study, consisting of an online-classroom 1-year training programme, and carried out in the Valencian community in Spain.
methodThe prevalence rates of recording of cardiovascular factors (recorded every 6 months over a 4-year period) were compared between intervention and control group. Clinical relevance was calculated by absolute risk reduction (ARR), relative risk reduction (RRR), and number of patients needed-to-attend (NNA), to avoid under-recording, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Linear regression models were used for each of the variables.
resultsOf the 941 professionals initially registered, 78.1% completed the programme. The ARR ranged from 1.87% (95% CI = 1.79 to 1.94) in the diagnosis of diabetes to 15.27% (95% CI = 15.14 to 15.40) in the recording of basal blood glucose. The NNA ranged from 7 in blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood glucose recording to 54 in the diagnosis of diabetes. The RRR ranged from 26.7% in the diagnosis of diabetes to 177.1% in the recording of the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE). The rates of change were greater in the intervention group and the differences were significant for recording of cholesterol (P<0.001), basal blood glucose (P<0.001), smoking (P<0.001), alcohol (P<0.001), microalbuminuria (P = 0.001), abdominal circumference (P<0.001), and SCORE (P<0.001).
conclusionThe education programme had a beneficial effect at the end of the follow-up that was significant and clinically relevant.
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.