Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728892›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2018

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Implementation Strategies for Non-communicable Disease Guidelines in Primary Health Care.

Eva Kovacs, Ralf Strobl, Amanda Phillips, Anna-Janina Stephan, Martin Müller, Jochen Gensichen, Eva Grill

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eva KovacsInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany. Eva.Kovacs@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Ralf StroblInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Amanda PhillipsInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Anna-Janina StephanInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Martin MüllerFaculty of Applied Health and Social Sciences, Rosenheim University of Applied Sciences, Rosenheim, Germany.
Jochen GensichenInstitute of General Medicine, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Eva GrillInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs clinical practice guidelines represent the most important evidence-based decision support tool, several strategies have been applied to improve their implementation into the primary health care system. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intervention methods on the guideline adherence of primary care providers (PCPs).

methodsThe studies selected through a systematic search in Medline and Embase were categorised according to intervention schemes and outcome indicator categories. Harvest plots and forest plots were applied to integrate results.

resultsThe 36 studies covered six intervention schemes, with single interventions being the most effective and distribution of materials the least. The harvest plot displayed 27 groups having no effect, 14 a moderate and 21 a strong effect on the outcome indicators in the categories of knowledge transfer, diagnostic behaviour, prescription, counselling and patient-level results. The forest plot revealed a moderate overall effect size of 0.22 [0.15, 0.29] where single interventions were more effective (0.27 [0.17, 0.38]) than multifaceted interventions (0.13 [0.06, 0.19]). DISCUSSION: Guideline implementation strategies are heterogeneous. Reducing the complexity of strategies and tailoring to the local conditions and PCPs' needs may improve implementation and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansNoncommunicable DiseasesPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareTreatment Outcomeevidence-based medicinegeneral practitionerharvest plotimplementationintervention

Identifiers

PMID29728892
PMCPMC6025666

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.