Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29341850›Full record

Trial reportTelemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association2018

Clinical Inertia in a Randomized Trial of Telemedicine-Based Chronic Disease Management: Lessons Learned.

Anna Beth Barton, Daniel E Okorodudu, Hayden B Bosworth, Matthew J Crowley

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Opportunity for Pharmacists in Telehealth, Team-Based Care: Clinical Inertia.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Beth Barton1 Richmond Diabetes and Endocrinology, Bon Secours Medical Group , Richmond, Virginia.
Daniel E Okorodudu2 Endocrinology Service, Guadalupe Regional Medical Center , Seguin, Texas.
Hayden B Bosworth3 Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care , Durham VAMC, Durham, North Carolina.
Matthew J Crowley3 Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care , Durham VAMC, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University · USBon Secours Health System · USRegional Medical Center · US

Funding

HSRD VA IK2 HX001514
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment nonadherence and clinical inertia perpetuate poor cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control. Telemedicine interventions may counter both treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia.

introductionWe explored why a telemedicine intervention designed to reduce treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia did not improve CVD risk factor control, despite enhancing treatment adherence versus usual care.

methodsIn this analysis of a randomized trial, we studied recipients of the 12-month telemedicine intervention. This intervention comprised two nurse-administered components: (1) monthly self-management education targeting improved treatment adherence; and (2) quarterly medication management facilitation designed to support treatment intensification by primary care (thereby reducing clinical inertia). For each medication management facilitation encounter, we ascertained whether patients met treatment goals, and if not, whether primary care recommended treatment intensification following the encounter. We assessed disease control associated with encounters, where intensification was/was not recommended.

resultsWe examined 455 encounters across 182 intervention recipients (100% African Americans with type 2 diabetes). Even after accounting for valid reasons for deferring intensification (e.g., treatment nonadherence), intensification was not recommended in 67.5% of encounters in which hemoglobin A1c was above goal, 72.5% in which systolic blood pressure was above goal, and 73.9% in which low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was above goal. In each disease state, treatment intensification was more likely with poorer control.

conclusionsDespite enhancing treatment adherence, this intervention was unsuccessful in countering clinical inertia, likely explaining its lack of effect on CVD risk factors. We identify several lessons learned that may benefit investigators and healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanAdultAgedBlood PressureDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansLipidsMaleMedication Therapy ManagementMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicRisk FactorsSelf-ManagementGlycated HemoglobinLipidscardiovascular disease risk factorsclinical inertiadiabetestelemedicinetreatment adherence

Identifiers

PMID29341850
OpenAlexW2783010843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.