Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35111292›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2022

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

Robin Brünn, Dorothea Lemke, Kiran Chapidi, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Alexandra Piotrowski, Sara Söling, Wolfgang Greiner, Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff, Nina Timmesfeld, Marjan van den Akker and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. 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

12 authors.

Robin BrünnInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main 60590, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9460-8313
Dorothea LemkeInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Kiran ChapidiInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Alexandra PiotrowskiCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Sara SölingCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Wolfgang GreinerDepartment of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Faculty of Health Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Petra Kellermann-MühlhoffBARMER Statutory Health Insurance Company, Product Strategy and Product Development, Wuppertal, Germany.
Nina TimmesfeldDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany.
Marjan van den AkkerInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Christiane MuthInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
AdAM study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.

objectiveTo evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?

methodsThe process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements. DISCUSSION: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportpolypharmacyprimary careprocess evaluationstudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID35111292
PMCPMC8796070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.