Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29382630›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary Heart Disease (MIMeRiC): Intervention Development and Protocol for the Process Evaluation.

Malin Johansson Östbring, Tommy Eriksson, Göran Petersson, Lina Hellström

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Engaging Biomedical Engineering in Health Disparities Challenges.Journal of community medicine & health education · 2018
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Malin Johansson ÖstbringPharmaceutical Department, Kalmar County Council, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7550-5706
Tommy ErikssonDepartment of Biomedical Science, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9437-4334
Göran PeterssoneHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4295-7201
Lina HellströmPharmaceutical Department, Kalmar County Council, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5211-8818
Linnaeus University · SELandstinget i Kalmar län · SEMalmö University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrials of complex interventions are often criticized for being difficult to interpret because the effects of apparently similar interventions vary across studies dependent on context, targeted groups, and the delivery of the intervention. The Motivational Interviewing and Medication Review in Coronary heart disease (MIMeRiC) trial is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention aimed at improving pharmacological secondary prevention. Guidelines for the development and evaluation of complex interventions have recently highlighted the need for better reporting of the development of interventions, including descriptions of how the intervention is assumed to work, how this theory informed the process evaluation, and how the process evaluation relates to the outcome evaluation.

objectiveThis paper aims to describe how the intervention was designed and developed. The aim of the process evaluation is to better understand how and why the intervention in the MIMeRiC trial was effective or not effective.

methodsThe research questions for evaluating the process are based on the conceptual model of change processes assumed in the intervention and will be analyzed by qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative data are used to evaluate the medication review in terms of drug-related problems, to describe how patients' beliefs about medicines are affected by the intervention, and to evaluate the quality of motivational interviewing. Qualitative data will be used to analyze whether patients experienced the intervention as intended, how cardiologists experienced the collaboration and intervention, and how the intervention affected patients' overall experience of care after coronary heart disease.

resultsThe development and piloting of the intervention are described in relation to the theoretical framework. Data for the process evaluation will be collected until March 2018. Some process evaluation questions will be analyzed before, and others will be analyzed after the outcomes of the MIMeRiC RCT are known.

conclusionsThis paper describes the framework for the design of the intervention tested in the MIMeRiC trial, development of the intervention from the pilot stage to the complete trial intervention, and the framework and methods for the process evaluation. Providing the protocol of the process evaluation allows prespecification of the processes that will be evaluated, because we hypothesize that they will determine the outcomes of the MIMeRiC trial. This protocol also constitutes a contribution to the new field of process evaluations as made explicit in health services research and clinical trials of complex interventions.

Indexed as

coronary artery disease, quality of health caremedication adherencemedication therapy managementpharmacist

Identifiers

PMID29382630
PMCPMC5811650
OpenAlexW2786916826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.