The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions to implement prevention in primary care
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians hold a strategic position in delivering preventive services. However discrepancies exist between evidence based guidelines and practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to improve the delivery of preventive services in primary care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register (November 1995; August 1999), MEDLINE (1980 to 1995) and hand searched relevant journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of interventions to improve preventive services by primary care professionals responsible for patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, involving more than 2000 health professionals and 99,000 people, with 83 comparisons between intervention and control groups. Post intervention differences between intervention and control groups varied widely within and across categories of interventions. Most interventions were found to be effective in some studies, but not in others. Five comparisons of group education versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -4% and +31%. Nine comparisons of physician reminders versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between 5% and 24%. Fourteen comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus no intervention showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -3% and +64%. Six comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus group education reported absolute changes varying between -31% and +28%. All these comparisons used randomised groups. Ten comparisons of multifaceted interventions versus no intervention used non-randomised groups and showed absolute change of preventive services varying between -5% and +21%. The remaining planned comparisons within categories of interventions contained less than five comparisons. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no solid basis for assuming that a particular intervention or package of interventions will work. Effective interventions to increase preventive activities in primary care exist, but there is considerable variation in the level of change achieved, with effect sizes usually small or moderate. Tailoring interventions to address specific barriers to change in a particular setting is probably important. Multifaceted interventions may be more effective than single interventions, because more barriers to change can be addressed. Future research should analyse barriers to change and interventions to implement preventive services in more detail, to clarify how interventions relate to specific barriers. Since more complex interventions are likely to be more effective but also more costly, economic evaluations should also be included.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tierney, W. M., Hui, S. L., & McDonald, C. J. (1986) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001 · Cited by 337
Karuza, J. (1995) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.1995.00430060089011 · Cited by 77
Should physicians perform their own quality assurance audits?
Brady, W. J., Hissa, D. C., McConnell, M., & Wones, R. G. (1988) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02596100 · Cited by 25
Cited by
Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f · Cited by 2,703
Squires, J. E., Sullivan, K., Eccles, M. P., Worswick, J., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 · Cited by 368
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening
Everett, T., Bryant, A., Griffin, M. F., Martin-Hirsch, P. P., Forbes, C. A., & Jepson, R. G. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd002834.pub2 · Cited by 332
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009993 · Cited by 254
“could be addressed.(60) However, the data suggested the effects of multifaceted strategies were variable and either no more effective or only slightly more effective in changing practice than single strategies.”
BackgroundTaking healthcare interventions from trial to practice
Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Altman, D. G., Bastian, H., Boutron, I., Brice, A., Jamtvedt, G., Farmer, A., Ghersi, D., Groves, T., et al. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c3852 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Hulscher, M., Wensing, M., van der Weijden, T., & Grol, R.
- Venue
- The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Complete Reviews)
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 1997-01-20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- CD000362-CD000362
- OpenAlex
- W2144224654
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 3
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Status
- Retracted
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interventions to implement prevention in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000362
- The paper
- Hulscher, M., Wensing, M., van der Weijden, T., & Grol, R. (1997). Interventions to implement prevention in primary care. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Complete Reviews). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000362
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.