CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesInnovations in Medical EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Management of hypertension in private practice: a randomized controlled trial in continuing medical education

Gullion, David S., Tschann, Jeanne M., Adamson, Elaine T., Coates, Thomas J.·1988·Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
DOI 10.1002/chp.4750080402
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate a physician education program designed to improve physician management of patients' hypertension, patient hypertension-related behaviors, and patient diastolic blood pressure. One hundred eleven private-practice physicians received medication education, behavioral education, both kinds of education, or no education. The educational program, which had either a medication or behavioral focus, consisted of individualized feedback reports based on medical record reviews and patient surveys, an educational syllabus, and a one-hour telephone conference call. Patient diastolic blood pressure improved significantly in all four groups, but there were no differences between the control group and the three groups receiving education. Educated physicians improved their response to abnormal laboratory tests and increased counseling about medication regimen, side effects, and sodium reduction, but conservative probability levels adjusting for the number of analyses rendered all these results nonsignificant. It was suggested that because both physicians and patients have longstanding habits, more intensive CME programs are required to improve physician performance and patient outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/chp.4750080402

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Gullion 1988 reported no differences in blood pressure control between feedback from chart audits and feedback from patient surveys (adjusted RD = 2%, patient outcome; no P value reported).

    “They reported no differences in blood pressure control (adjusted RD = 2%, patient outcome; no P value reported for this comparison).”

    From Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (2012) · cites this paper as Gullion 1988

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gullion, D. S., Tschann, J. M., Adamson, E. T., & Coates, T. J.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1988
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
239-255
ISSN
0894-1912 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/chp.4750080402
OpenAlex
W2063620140
Cited by
31
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
antihypertensive therapy, continuing medical education, physician training, private physicians, personalized feedback, pharmacist counseling, patient behavior, diastolic blood pressure, sodium reduction, medical records review

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