Trial reportHealth services research2020
Architecting Process of Care: A randomized controlled study evaluating the impact of providing nonadherence information and pharmacist assistance to physicians.
Trial report in Health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the Impact of Behavioral Sciences Interventions on Chronic Disease Prevention and Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Architecting Process of Care: A randomized controlled study evaluating the impact of providing nonadherence information and pharmacist assistance to physicians.Health services research · 2020Trial
- Application, Benefits, and Limitations of Telepharmacy for Patients with Diabetes in the Outpatient Setting.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Review
- Factors influencing clinical pharmacists' integration into the clinical multidisciplinary care team.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test the impact of connecting physicians, pharmacists, and patients to address medication nonadherence, and to compare different physician choice architectures. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingThe study was conducted with 90 physicians and 2602 of their patients on medications treating chronic illness. STUDY
designIn this cluster randomized controlled trial, physicians were randomly assigned to an arm where the physician receives notification of patient nonadherence derived from real-time claims data, an arm where they receive this information and a pharmacist may contact patients either by default or by physician choice, and a control group. The primary outcome was resolving nonadherence within 30 days. We also considered physician engagement outcomes including viewing information about nonadherence and utilizing a pharmacist. DATA COLLECTION: Physician engagement was constructed from metadata from the study website; adherence outcomes were constructed from medication claims. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe see no differences between the treatment arms and control for the primary adherence outcome. The pharmacist intervention was 42 percentage points (95% CI: 28 pp-56 pp) more likely when it was triggered by default.
conclusionsAccess to a pharmacist and real-time nonadherence information did not improve patient adherence. Physician process of care was sensitive to choice architecture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.