Trial reportImplementation science : IS2016
Process evaluation of a tailored intervention programme of cardiovascular risk management in general practices.
Trial report 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Patient cardiovascular risk self-management: results from a randomized trial of motivational interviewing delivered by practice nurses.Family practice · 2019Trial
- Do process evaluations open up the 'black box' of implementation interventions in health care? A scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA tailored implementation programme to improve cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) in general practice had little impact on outcomes. The questions in this process evaluation concerned (1) impact on counselling skills and CVRM knowledge of practice nurses, (2) their use of the various components of the intervention programme and adoption of recommended practices and (3) patients' perceptions of counselling for CVRM.
methodsA mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. We assessed practice nurses' motivational interviewing skills on audio-taped consultations using Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI). They also completed a clinical knowledge test. Both practice nurses and patients reported on their experiences in a written questionnaire and interviews. A multilevel regression analysis and an independent sample t test were used to examine motivational interviewing skills and CVRM knowledge. Framework analysis was applied to analyse qualitative data.
resultsData from 34 general practices were available, 19 intervention practices and 14 control practices. No improvements were measured on motivational interviewing skills in both groups. There appeared to be better knowledge of CVRM in the control group. On average half of the practice nurses indicated that they adopted the recommended interventions, but stated that they did not necessarily record this in patients' medical files. The tailored programme was perceived as too large. Time, follow-up support and reminders were felt to be lacking. About 20% of patients in the intervention group visited the general practice during the intervention period, yet only a small number of these patients were referred to recommended options.
conclusionsThe tailored programme was only partly used by practice nurses and had little impact on either their clinical knowledge and communication skills or on patient reported healthcare. If the assumed logical model of change is valid, a more intensive programme is needed to have an impact on CVRM in general practice at all.
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.