Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29691206›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2018

Designing for Clinical Change: Creating an Intervention to Implement New Statin Guidelines in a Primary Care Clinic.

Melissa DeJonckheere, Claire H Robinson, Lindsey Evans, Julie Lowery, Bradley Youles, Adam Tremblay, Caitlin Kelley, Jeremy B Sussman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Melissa DeJonckheereDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2660-3358
Claire H RobinsonCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1908-6636
Lindsey EvansCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3649-0454
Julie LoweryCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3973-7459
Bradley YoulesCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5593-890X
Adam TremblayDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7671-1632
Caitlin KelleyCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4774-1458
Jeremy B SussmanCenter for Clinical Management Research, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2158-3618
University of Michigan · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK092926 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI MARY ELLEN MICHELE HEISLER, ADESUWA B OLOMU · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
Developing Benefit-Based Performance Measurement for VHAI01HX002014 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI SUSSMAN, JEREMY BRODER · 2018 to 2020
–
Implementation research of benefit-based treatment for cardiovascular diseaseIK2HX001368 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI SUSSMAN, JEREMY BRODER · 2015 to 2019
–
HSRD VA I01 HX002014HSRD VA IK2 HX001368NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent clinical practice guidelines from major national organizations, including a joint United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) committee, have substantially changed recommendations for the use of the cholesterol-lowering statin medications after years of relative stability. Because statin medications are among the most commonly prescribed treatments in the United States, any change in their use may have significant implications for patients and providers alike. Prior research has shown that effective implementation interventions should be both user centered and specifically chosen to address identified barriers.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to identify potential determinants of provider uptake of the new statin guidelines and to use that information to tailor a coordinated and streamlined local quality improvement intervention focused on prescribing appropriate statins.

methodsWe employed user-centered design principles to guide the development and testing of a multicomponent guideline implementation intervention to improve statin prescribing. This paper describes the intervention development process whereby semistructured qualitative interviews with providers were conducted to (1) illuminate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of providers and (2) elicit feedback on intervention prototypes developed to align with and support the use of the VA/DoD guidelines. Our aim was to use this information to design a local quality improvement intervention focused on statin prescribing that was tailored to the needs of primary care providers at our facility. Cabana's Clinical Practice Guidelines Framework for Improvement and Nielsen's Usability Heuristics were used to guide the analysis of data obtained in the intervention development process.

resultsSemistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 primary care Patient Aligned Care Team professionals (13 physicians and 2 clinical pharmacists) at a single VA medical center. Findings highlight that providers were generally comfortable with the paradigm shift to risk-based guidelines but less clear on the need for the VA/DoD guidelines in specific. Providers preferred a clinical decision support tool that helped them calculate patient risk and guide their care without limiting autonomy. They were less comfortable with risk communication and performance measurement systems that do not account for shared decision making. When possible, we incorporated their recommendations into the intervention.

conclusionsBy combining qualitative methods and user-centered design principles, we could inform the design of a multicomponent guideline implementation intervention to better address the needs and preferences of providers, including clear and direct language, logical decision prompts with an option to dismiss a clinical decision support tool, and logical ordering of feedback information. Additionally, this process allowed us to identify future design considerations for quality improvement interventions.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseaseclinical decision supportimplementationpreventative medicinequalitative researchuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID29691206
PMCPMC5941089
OpenAlexW2803092991

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.