ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-reflective and reflective strategies to favor de-implementation of low-value prescribing for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: the DE-imFAR cluster randomized implementation trial.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04022850 (De-implementation of Low-value Pharmacological Prescriptions), which is not on this 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.
De-implementation of Low-value Pharmacological Prescriptions
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe DE-imFAR study aims to compare the effectiveness of several de-implementation strategies targeting clinicians' decision-making processes to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of statins for cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention.
methodsA partially randomized, cluster implementation trial with an active comparator group, involving family physicians (FPs) with non-zero incidence rates of PIP of statins in 2021, was conducted in 13 integrated healthcare organizations (IHOs) in the Basque Health Service. All eligible FPs (n = 621) were exposed to (1) a non-reflective decision assistance (DA) strategy based on reminders. FPs from two IHOs were randomized to additionally receive one of two increasingly intensive reflective strategies: (2) a knowledge dissemination decision information (DI) strategy (n = 59), or (3) a DI strategy plus audit and feedback (A&F) self-reflective decision (SRD) strategy (n = 59). The main outcome was the change from baseline to 12 months after deployment in the likelihood of receiving new PIP of statins and advice on lifestyle modifications, estimated with generalized mixed effects models, in 45- to 74-year-old low cardiovascular risk patients with elevated cholesterol levels but no diagnosed CVD.
resultsAfter FPs' exposure to the corresponding strategies, rates of statin PIP decreased significantly in all groups (p < 0.001). Concerning study's main observational comparisons between strategies, though the reduction obtained by the DI and SRD strategies were 33% (adjusted OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.58-1.01) and 6% (aOR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.73-1.23) higher compared to the change from the DA, estimated differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). When comparing the two reflective strategies together (DI + SRD) with the non-reflective (DA), a significant difference (p = 0.038) was observed, being the odds of receiving PIP of statins 19% lower (aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.66-0.99). In the experimental comparison between reflective strategies (SRD vs. DI), providing A&F to FPs showed no additional effect (p = 0.30).
conclusionsDe-implementation strategies that targeted clinical decision-making were effective in reducing PIP of statins for CVD primary prevention. Strategies that targeted reflective thinking and increased awareness of low-value prescribing showed a trend toward greater effectiveness.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04022850. Registered 17 July 2019.
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.