Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024
Education to improve timeliness of shingles diagnosis in primary care: a cluster randomised study within a trial with nested qualitative study.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHerpes zoster (shingles) is normally diagnosed clinically. Timely diagnosis is important so that antiviral treatment can be started soon after rash onset.
aimTo assess whether a practice-level educational intervention, aimed at non-clinical patient-facing staff, improves the timely assessment of patients with shingles. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a cluster randomised study within a trial (SWAT) with nested qualitative study in general practices in England.
methodPractices were cluster randomised 1:1, stratified by centre and minimised by practice list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. Intervention practices were sent educational materials, highlighting the common presenting features of shingles and what action to take if suspected. The primary and secondary outcomes were the mean proportion of patients per practice seen within 72 and 144 h of rash onset, respectively. Comparison between groups was conducted using linear regression, adjusting for randomisation variables. Semi-structured interviews with practice staff in intervention practices explored views and opinions about the intervention.
resultsIn total, 67 practices were enrolled; 34 randomised to the intervention and 33 to the control. The mean difference in proportion of patients seen within 72 and 144 h was -0.132 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.308 to 0.043) and -0.039 (95% CI = -0.158 to 0.080), respectively. In intervention practices, 90.9% reported distributing the educational materials; however, engagement with these was suboptimal. Twelve participants were interviewed, and the poster component of the intervention was said to be easiest to implement.
conclusionOur educational intervention did not improve the timely assessment of patients with shingles. This may be the result of poor intervention engagement.
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.