Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1995
Using information from asthma patients: a trial of information feedback in primary care.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2008Pooled it
- Can small group education and peer review improve care for patients with asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?Quality in health care : QHC · 1999Trial
- The effect of a mystery shopper scheme on prescribing behavior in primary care: Results from a field experiment.Health economics review · 2020Article
- Organising primary health care for people with asthma: the patient's perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000Article
- The science of perpetual change.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the effects of feedback of information about patients' asthma to primary care teams.
designPatients' reports of morbidity, use of health services, and drug use on questionnaire was given to primary care teams. Randomised controlled trial with general practices as the subject of the intervention was used to test effectiveness of supplying information.
settingPrimary care in district health authority, London. SUBJECTS: 23 general practices, each of which notified at least 20 asthmatic patients aged 15-60 years for each principal. Practices were randomly allocated to an invention group (receiving feedback of information on control of asthma) or a control group (no feedback).
interventionInformation on cards inserted in patients' medical records; booklet copies of information for team members; formal presentation to primary care teams; poster displays of data on patients in each practice.
main outcome measuresType and frequency of asthma symptoms, use of health services, use of asthma drugs.
resultsReported morbidity at entry to the study was substantial: 45% (818) patients reported breathlessness at least once a week. Less than half these patients were using inhaled steroids regularly. Intervention and control groups did not differ in practice or patient characteristics on entry to the study. In spite of the potential for improvement no differences were observed between the two practice groups at the end of the study--for example, breathlessness at least once a week in last six months was experienced by 36% in intervention group v 35% in control group (t = -0.27, P < 0.79); surgery attendance in last six months by 48% v 48% (t = -0.05, P < 0.96); regular use of inhaled steroids by 60% v 58% (t = 0.51, P < 0.62).
conclusionFeedback to general practitioners of information about patients' asthma does not on its own lead to change in the outcome of clinical care.
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.