Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39207446›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Impact of an Electronic Health Record-Based Interruptive Alert Among Patients With Headaches Seen in Primary Care: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Apoorva Pradhan, Eric A Wright, Vanessa A Hayduk, Juliana Berhane, Mallory Sponenberg, Leeann Webster, Hannah Anderson, Siyeon Park, Jove Graham, Scott Friedenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Apoorva PradhanCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1066-4973
Eric A WrightCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1721-4104
Vanessa A HaydukCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1056-6038
Juliana BerhanePharmacy Support Services, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9885-1588
Mallory SponenbergHealth Information Technology, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3433-1153
Leeann WebsterEnterprise Pharmacy, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4465-224X
Hannah AndersonCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-4789-9045
Siyeon ParkPharmesol Inc, Auburndale, MA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8666-6692
Jove GrahamCenter for Pharmacy Innovation and Outcomes, Geisinger, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7881-8588
Scott FriedenbergDepartment of Neurology, Neuroscience Institute, Geisinger and Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Danville, PA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7998-1176

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Headaches, including migraines, are one of the most common causes of disability and account for nearly 20%-30% of referrals from primary care to neurology. In primary care, electronic health record-based alerts offer a mechanism to influence health care provider behaviors, manage neurology referrals, and optimize headache care. Objective: This project aimed to evaluate the impact of an electronic alert implemented in primary care on patients' overall headache management. Methods: We conducted a stratified cluster-randomized study across 38 primary care clinic sites between December 2021 to December 2022 at a large integrated health care delivery system in the United States. Clinics were stratified into 6 blocks based on region and patient-to-health care provider ratios and then 1:1 randomized within each block into either the control or intervention. Health care providers practicing at intervention clinics received an interruptive alert in the electronic health record. The primary end point was a change in headache burden, measured using the Headache Impact Test 6 scale, from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in headache frequency and intensity, access to care, and resource use. We analyzed the difference-in-differences between the arms at follow-up at the individual patient level. Results: We enrolled 203 adult patients with a confirmed headache diagnosis. At baseline, the average Headache Impact Test 6 scores in each arm were not significantly different (intervention: mean 63, SD 6.9; control: mean 61.8, SD 6.6; P=.21). We observed a significant reduction in the headache burden only in the intervention arm at follow-up (3.5 points; P=.009). The reduction in the headache burden was not statistically different between groups (difference-in-differences estimate -1.89, 95% CI -5 to 1.31; P=.25). Similarly, secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Only 11.32% (303/2677) of alerts were acted upon. Conclusions: The use of an interruptive electronic alert did not significantly improve headache outcomes. Low use of alerts by health care providers prompts future alterations of the alert and exploration of alternative approaches.

Indexed as

clinician decision support toolsEHRelectronic health recordelectronic health record–based alertsheadache managementmigraine managementprimary care

Identifiers

PMID39207446
PMCPMC11376138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.