Trial reportJAMA network open2020
Effect of a Social Norm Email Feedback Program on the Unnecessary Prescription of Nimodipine in Ambulatory Care of Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of social norms messaging approaches for improving health behaviours in developed countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Promoting long-acting reversible contraception among post-abortion clients with a provider-comparison intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Nepal.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of different de-implementation strategies in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
- Increasing the use of telemedicine: A field experiment.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Feedback Intervention for the Control of Glucocorticoid Prescription in Primary Care Institutions: A Cluster Randomized Cross-Over Controlled Trial in Southwest China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Nimodipine is a highly prescribed drug for the treatment of cognitive impairment and dementia in Argentina. There is little evidence to support the use of nimodipine for cognitive impairment and dementia. Objective: To test the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention based on social norm feedback to reduce prescription of nimodipine for cognitive impairment in Argentina. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic parallel-group randomized clinical trial included 2 arms with a 1:1 allocation ratio. General practitioner physicians in the national health care system for older adults in Argentina (INSSJP-PAMI) with history of high nimodipine prescription rate were enrolled. The study was conducted from May 2019 to October 2019, and data were analyzed from November 2019 to February 2020. Interventions: The treatment group received 2 emails with evidence-based information about nimodipine plus the individual's level of nimodipine prescription compared with their peers. The control group received 2 emails with general information about the risks of overprescription in older adults. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative number of nimodipine prescriptions per 1000 prescriptions of all drugs made by the targeted physicians during the 6 months of the study. Secondary outcomes included annual monetary savings attributable to the intervention and physicians' qualitative perceptions of the acceptability of the procedure. Results: Of 1811 physicians enrolled, 906 physicians (354 [39.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.10 [10.73] years) were randomized to treatment and 905 participants (331 [36.6%] women; mean [SD] age, 56.49 [10.47] years) to the control group. Physicians in the treatment group wrote a mean of 93.25 (95% CI, 89.27 to 97.24) prescriptions of nimodipine, compared with 98.99 (95% CI, 95.00 to 102.98) prescriptions among practitioners in the control group during the half-year of the intervention (mean difference, -5.73 [95% CI, -11.38 to -0.10] prescriptions; P = .046), which meant a 5.79% reduction. Regression analysis revealed a significant association of the group condition with number of prescriptions per 1000 total prescriptions when controlling for baseline prescriptions (B = -0.312 [95% CI, -0.465 to -0.160]; P < .001). The observed difference corresponds to a 4.48% reduction in nimodipine prescriptions per 1000 prescriptions of all drugs made by physicians in the treated group compared with the control group. Physicians who effectively opened the email in the treatment group (427 physicians [47.1%]) prescribed the drug 11.3% less compared with the control group (426 physicians) (mean difference, -10.78 [95% CI, -18.53 to -3.03] prescriptions; P = .006). Expenditures were 7.18% lower in the treatment group, resulting in an estimated annual net cost benefit of US $234 893.35 (95% CI, $225 565.35 to $237 112.30). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the social norm email feedback program showed an effect on curbing the nonrecommended prescription of nimodipine. It was highly cost-effective and well accepted by participants. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org identifier: ISRCTN17823729.
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.