| Title |
Effectiveness of computerized point-of-care reminders on adherence with multiple clinical recommendations by primary health care providers: protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3124-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leonardo Méndez Boo, Ermengol Coma, Manuel Medina, Eduardo Hermosilla, Manuel Iglesias, Carmen Olmos, Sebastian Calero Muñoz, Johanna Caro Mendivelso |
| Abstract |
To determine the effectiveness of reminders compared to no reminders in improving adherence to multiple clinical recommendations measured as the resolution of the clinical condition that motivated the reminder, in a primary care setting with a well-established feedback system. A 12-month, cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed (randomized by primary care team) to evaluate the impact of computerized reminders. All study participants will continue to receive the usual feedback from the electronic health records system. The control group (well-established feedback) will be compared with reminders and a well-established feedback system. The study will include all general practitioners (3425) and nurses (3262) providing primary care for a population aged 14 years or older in the 282 primary care teams reporting to the Catalan Institute of Health. Up to 10 clinical reminders are offered for each patient, recommending action related to at least one of nine clinical conditions: arterial hypertension, elevated cardiovascular risk, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular accident, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, smoking habit, and hepatitis C. The outcomes are the resolution of the clinical condition that motivated the reminder and the time elapsed between the first reminder message and implementation of the recommended action (months). Due to the obvious correlation between reminders about the same patient, the profile of patients assigned to a particular professional, and the professionals assigned to a particular centre, hierarchical modelling will be used to simultaneously estimate the effect of the study variables at these different levels of analysis. To estimate the impact of the intervention arm, an analysis of adherence to each type of reminder will be carried out, using multi-level logistical regression models at level of the primary care centre. Time to adherence will be estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons will be done using the log-rank test. The results of this study could provide new evidence on the impact of computerized reminders at the point of care on adherence to clinical guidelines in primary care with an established feedback system. Trial registration ISRCTN42391639. October 8, 2012. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#6,413,894
of 25,342,911 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#345
of 1,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,560
of 343,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#48
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,342,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.