Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41263476›Full record

Trial reportJMIR aging2025

Implementation of the German Clinical Practice Guideline for Multimorbidity Using a Digital Tool in Primary Care: Pilot Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Julia Nothacker, Valentina Paucke, Susanne Lezius, Antonia Zapf, Dagmar Lühmann, Martin Scherer, Ingmar Schäfer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06061172 (Evaluation of a Digital Tool Enhancing GPs' Information Management in the Treatment of Patients with Multimorbidity - a Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT06061172 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of a Digital Tool Enhancing GPs' Information Management in the Treatment of Patients with Multimorbidity - a Pilot Study (gp-multitool)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2023 to 2024Enrolled123ConditionsAsthma, Breast Neoplasms, Coronary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Armsgp-multitool.de
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Julia NothackerInstitute and Outpatients Clinic of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8636-8831
Valentina PauckeInstitute and Outpatients Clinic of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3381-6791
Susanne LeziusInstitute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, null, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4832-4333
Antonia ZapfInstitute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, null, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-0508
Dagmar LühmannInstitute and Outpatients Clinic of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7965-5007
Martin SchererInstitute and Outpatients Clinic of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3448-9679
Ingmar SchäferInstitute and Outpatients Clinic of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1038-7478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) summarize the best available evidence in a specific field. To improve patient-centered outcomes, guidelines have to be implemented, using, for example, information and communications technology. Although there are CPGs addressing multimorbidity, there is still a lack of studies investigating their implementation.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether the implementation of a CPG for multimorbidity using a digital tool is feasible and explore possible effects of this intervention.

methodsA pilot cluster randomized clinical trial based on telephone interviews was conducted from October 25, 2023, to September 8, 2024. Patients enrolled in any disease management program who were aged ≥65 years and had at least 2 additional chronic conditions were randomly selected from 20 general practitioner (GP) practices and contacted for informed consent. Each practice was randomized after baseline interviews of all participating patients in the practice were finished. The use of a web application facilitating collection and documentation of treatment-relevant data in accordance with the German CPG for multimorbidity was compared with treatment as usual. The primary outcome was time spent in hospital. As a secondary outcome, the number of patients with at least one hospital admission was calculated. Further secondary outcomes included outpatient health care use, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. Feasibility assessment included examination of sample size, participation rate, and compliance with the study protocol. Outcome measures were analyzed using linear, logistic, and negative binomial regressions with random intercepts for practices.

resultsOf 384 patients who were contacted, 123 (32%) agreed to participate, and 120 (31.3%, including 54/120, 45% in the intervention group and 66/120, 55% in the control group) completed baseline and follow-up assessments. Mean age was 75.4 (SD 6.6) years, and 51.7% (62/120) were women. The compliance rate, or the proportion of patients who were treated per protocol, was 89% (48/54). In our data, the incidence rate of hospital days was comparable in both groups (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.09-9.42; P=.96), but the odds of hospital admission were almost reduced by half in the intervention group (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.17-1.54; P=.23). Our data also suggest a higher incidence rate of GP contacts (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 0.83-1.53; P=.43) and lower incidence rate of contacts with outpatient specialists (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54-1.15; P=.24) in the intervention group compared to usual care. Moreover, patients and GPs reported a better quality of care (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.14; P=.12 and mean difference 1.19, 95% CI 0.13-2.25; P=.03, respectively) in the intervention group.

conclusionsImplementation of the CPG using a digital tool was feasible. Our data suggest that the probability of hospital admissions and contacts with outpatient specialists might be reduced and quality of care might be improved.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06061172; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06061172.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityPractice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGermanyHumansMalePatient SatisfactionPilot ProjectsQuality of Lifeclinical practice guidelineshospitalizationsimplementationmultimorbidity

Identifiers

PMID41263476
PMCPMC12679070

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.