CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 386Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Preventive Care by Prompting Physicians

Balas, E. A.·2000·Archives of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archinte.160.3.301
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To assess the impact of prompting physicians on health maintenance, answer questions regarding the mode of delivery, and identify opportunities and limitations of this information intervention. Methods Systematic electronic and manual searches (January 1, 1966, to December 31, 1996) were conducted to identify clinical trial reports on prompting clinicians. Three eligibility criteria were applied: (1) randomized controlled clinical trial, (2) clinician prompt, alert, or reminder in the study group and no similar intervention in the control group, and (3) measurement of the intervention effect on the frequency of preventive care procedures. Data were abstracted by independent reviewers using a standardized abstraction form, and quality of methodology was scored. A series of meta-analyses on triggering clinical actions was performed using the random-effects method. The statistical analyses included 33 eligible studies, which involved 1547 clinicians and 54 693 patients. Results Overall, prompting can significantly increase preventive care performance by 13.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-15.6%). However, the effect ranges from 5.8% (95% CI, 1.5%-10.1%) for Papanicolaou smear to 18.3% (95% CI, 11.6%-25.1%) for influenza vaccination. The effect is not cumulative, and the length of intervention period did not show correlation with effect size (R = -0.015, P = .47). Academic affiliation, ratio of residents, and technique of delivery did not have a significant impa…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.160.3.301

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 386

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Balas, E. A.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Balas, E. A.
ORCID
Balas, E. A.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2000-02-14
Volume
160
Issue
3
Pages
301-308
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archinte.160.3.301
OpenAlex
W2168700574
Cited by
385
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 23
FWCI
59.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM05545)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
preventive medicine, health maintenance, Pap smear, influenza vaccination, information interventions, mode of delivery, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Preventive Medicine, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review