Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8312032›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1994

Effectiveness and cost of different strategies for information feedback in general practice.

A Szczepura, J Wilmot, C Davies, J Fletcher

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. General practitioners' continuing education: a review of policies, strategies and effectiveness, and their implications for the future.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions.Quality & safety in health care · 2003
    Article
  8. General practitioners with a special clinical interest: a model for improving respiratory disease management.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
  9. Changing doctor prescribing behaviour.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 1999
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: which interventions are effective?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Review
  12. The facilitator effect: results from a four-year follow-up of children with asthma.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997
    Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

A SzczepuraHealth Services Research Unit, University of Warwick.
J Wilmot
C Davies
J Fletcher

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and relative cost of three forms of information feedback to general practices--graphical, graphical plus a visit by a medical facilitator and tabular.

methodRoutinely collected, centrally-held data were used where possible, analysed at practice level. Some non-routine practice data in the form of risk factor recording in medical notes, for example weight, smoking status, alcohol consumption and blood pressure, were also provided to those who requested it. The 52 participating practices were stratified and randomly allocated to one of the three feedback groups. The cost of providing each type of feedback was determined. The immediate response of practitioners to the form of feedback (acceptability), ease of understanding (intelligibility), and usefulness of regular feedback was recorded. Changes introduced as a result of feedback were assessed by questionnaire shortly after feedback, and 12 months later. Changes at the practice level in selected indicators were also assessed 12 and 24 months after initial feedback.

resultsThe resulting cost per effect was calculated to be 46.10 pounds for both graphical and tabular feedback, 132.50 pounds for graphical feedback plus facilitator visit and 773.00 pounds for the manual audit of risk factors recorded in the practice notes. The three forms of feedback did not differ in intelligibility or usefulness, but feedback plus a medical facilitator visit was significantly less acceptable. There was a high level of self-reported organizational change following feedback, with 69% of practices reporting changes as a direct result; this was not significantly different for the three types of feedback. There were no significant changes in the selected indicators at 12 or 24 months following feedback. The practice characteristic most closely related to better indicators of preventive practice was practice size, smaller practices performing significantly better. Separate clinics were not associated with better preventive practice.

conclusionIt is concluded that feedback strategies using graphical and tabular comparative data are equally cost-effective in general practice with about two thirds of practices reporting organizational change as a consequence; feedback involving unsolicited medical facilitator visits is less cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of manual risk factor audit is also called into question.

Indexed as

Family PracticeInformation ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFeedbackHumansRandom Allocation

Identifiers

PMID8312032
PMCPMC1238757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.