Observational studyImplementation science : IS2016
Efficiency of the implementation of cardiovascular risk management in primary care practices: an observational study.
Observational study in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Efficiency of Primary Health Services in the Greek Public Sector: Evidence from Bootstrapped DEA/FDH Estimators.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Design of the ZWOT-CASE study: an observational study on the effectiveness of an integrated programme for cardiovascular risk management compared to usual care in general practice.BMC family practice · 2019Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to document the variation in technical efficiency of primary care (PC) practices in delivering evidence-based cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and to identify associated factors.
methodsThis observational study was based on the follow-up measurements in a cluster randomized trial. Patients were recruited from 41 general practices in the Netherlands, involving 106 GPs and 1671 patients. Data on clinical performance were collected from patient records. The analysis focused on PC practices and used a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Bias-corrected DEA technical efficiency scores for each PC practice were generated, followed by regression analysis with practice efficiency as outcomes and organizational features of general practice as predictors.
resultsNot all PC practices delivered recommended CVRM with the same technical efficiency; a significant difference from the efficient frontier was found (p < .000; 95 % CI 1.018-1.041). The variation in technical efficiency between PC practices was associated with training practice status (p = .026). Whether CVRM clinical tasks were performed by a practice nurse or a GP did not influence technical efficiency in a statistical significant way neither did practice size.
conclusionsTechnical efficiency in delivering evidence-based CVRM increased with having a training practice status. Nurse involvement and practice size showed no statistical impact.
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.