Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28061794›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2017

Process evaluation of the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) trial: active and less active ingredients of a multi-component complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing.

Aileen Grant, Tobias Dreischulte, Bruce Guthrie

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01425502 (Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT01425502 nacompletednot on this map

Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care: Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial to Test the Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention in Reducing High Risk Prescribing of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs and Antiplatelet Agents

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of DundeeRan2012 to 2014Enrolled33ConditionsDrug SafetyArmsDQIP Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

3 authors.

Aileen GrantFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. aileen.grant@stir.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6146-101X
Tobias DreischulteMedicines Governance Unit, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK.
Bruce GuthriePopulation Health Sciences Division, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo to 4% of emergency hospital admissions are caused by preventable adverse drug events. The estimated costs of such avoidable admissions in England were £530 million in 2015. The data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention was designed to prompt review of patients vulnerable from currently prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and anti-platelets and was found to be effective at reducing this prescribing. A process evaluation was conducted parallel to the trial, and this paper reports the analysis which aimed to explore response to the intervention delivered to clusters in relation to participants' perceptions about which intervention elements were active in changing their practice.

methodsData generation was by in-depth interview with key staff exploring participant's perceptions of the intervention components. Analysis was iterative using the framework technique and drawing on normalisation process theory.

resultsAll the primary components of the intervention were perceived as active, but at different stages of implementation: financial incentives primarily supported recruitment; education motivated the GPs to initiate implementation; the informatics tool facilitated sustained implementation. Participants perceived the primary components as interdependent. Intervention subcomponents also varied in whether and when they were active. For example, run charts providing feedback of change in prescribing over time were ignored in the informatics tool, but were motivating in some practices in the regular e-mailed newsletter. The high-risk NSAID and anti-platelet prescribing targeted was accepted as important by all interviewees, and this shared understanding was a key wider context underlying intervention effectiveness.

conclusionsThis was a novel use of process evaluation data which examined whether and how the individual intervention components were effective from the perspective of the professionals delivering changed care to patients. These findings are important for reproducibility and roll-out of the intervention.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01425502 .

Indexed as

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceCluster AnalysisDrug PrescriptionsEnglandGeneral PracticeHumansMotivationNewspapers as TopicPatient SafetyPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareProcess Assessment, Health CareRisk ManagementAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsFamily practiceGeneral practicePrescribingProcess evaluationQuality and safetyRandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID28061794
PMCPMC5219764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.