Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34668873›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Reach Outcomes and Costs of Different Physician Referral Strategies for a Weight Management Program Among Rural Primary Care Patients: Type 3 Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial.

Gwenndolyn Porter, Tzeyu L Michaud, Robert J Schwab, Jennie L Hill, Paul A Estabrooks

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03690557 (Examining Reach and Implementation of an Evidence-based Weight Loss Program in Rural Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

NCT03690557 nacompletednot on this map

Examining Reach and Implementation of an Evidence-based Weight Loss Program in Rural Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NebraskaRan2018 to 2020Enrolled98ConditionsObesityArmsIncentaHealth
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gwenndolyn PorterDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6592-9537
Tzeyu L MichaudCenter for Reducing Health Disparities, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2053-3942
Robert J SchwabUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1293-7453
Jennie L HillDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0510-383X
Paul A EstabrooksDepartment of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2261-9886
University of Nebraska Medical Center · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRural residents are at high risk for obesity; however, little resources exist to address this disproportional burden of disease. Primary care may provide an opportunity to connect primary care patients with overweight and obesity to effective weight management programming.

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to examine the utility of different physician referral and engagement processes for improving the reach of an evidence-based and technology-delivered weight management program with counseling support for rural primary care patients.

methodsA total of 5 rural primary care physicians were randomly assigned a sequence of four referral strategies: point-of-care (POC) referral with active telephone follow-up (ATF); POC referral, no ATF; a population health registry-derived letter referral with ATF; and letter referral, no ATF. For registry-derived referrals, physicians screened a list of patients with BMI ≥25 and approved patients for participation to receive a personalized referral letter via mail.

resultsOut of a potential 991 referrals, 573 (57.8%) referrals were made over 16 weeks, and 98 (9.9%) patients were enrolled in the program (58/98, 59.2% female). Differences based on letter (485/991, 48.9%) versus POC (506/991, 51.1%) referrals were identified for completion (100% vs 7%; P<.001) and for proportion screened (36% vs 12%; P<.001) but not for proportion enrolled (12% vs 8%; P=.10). Patients receiving ATF were more likely to be screened (47% vs 7%; P<.001) and enrolled (15% vs 7%; P<.001) than those not receiving ATF. On the basis of the number of referrals made in each condition, we found variations in the proportion and number of enrollees (POC with ATF: 27/190, 50%; POC no ATF: 14/316, 41%; letter ATF: 30/199; 15.1%; letter no ATF: 27/286, 9.4%). Across all conditions, participants were representative of the racial and ethnic characteristics of the region (60% female, P=.15; 94% White individuals, P=.60; 94% non-Hispanic, P=.19). Recruitment costs totaled US $6192, and the overall recruitment cost per enrolled participant was US $63. Cost per enrolled participant ranged from POC with ATF (US $47), registry-derived letter without ATF (US $52), and POC without ATF (US $56) to registry-derived letter with ATF (US $91).

conclusionsLetter referral with ATF appears to be the best option for enrolling a large number of patients in a digitally delivered weight management program; however, POC with ATF and letters without ATF yielded similar numbers at a lower cost. The best referral option is likely dependent on the best fit with clinical resources.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690557; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03690557.

Indexed as

digital healthhealth technologyhybrid effectiveness-implementationmobile phoneobesityphysiciansprimary careRE-AIMruralweight management

Identifiers

PMID34668873
PMCPMC8567148
OpenAlexW3185685414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.