CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

A clustered randomized trial of the effects of feedback using academic detailing compared to postal bulletin on prescribing of preventative cardiovascular therapy

Open access
Naughton, C., Feely, J., Bennett, K.·2007·Family Practice
DOI 10.1093/fampra/cmm044
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interventions to promote prescribing of preventive therapies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or diabetes have reported variable success. OBJECTIVE: (i) To evaluate the effect of prescribing feedback on GP practice using academic detailing compared to postal bulletin on prescribing of CVD preventive therapies in patients with CVD or diabetes at 3 and 6 months post intervention and (ii) to evaluate the intervention from a GP's perspective. METHODS: Volunteer GP practices (n = 98) were randomized to receive individualized prescribing feedback via academic detailing (postal bulletin plus outreach visit) (n = 48) or postal bulletin (n = 50). The proportion of CVD or diabetic patients on statins and antiplatelet agents/warfarin pre- and post-intervention was calculated for each GP practice. Multivariate regression with a random effects model was used to compare differences between the groups adjusting for GP clustering and confounding factors. beta-Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. RESULTS: There was a 3% increase in statin prescribing in CVD patients at 6 months post-intervention for both randomized groups, but there was no statistical difference between the groups (beta = 0.004; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). Statin and antiplatelet/warfarin prescribing also increased in the diabetic population; there was no significant differences between the groups. GPs participating in the project expressed a high level of satisfaction with both interventions. CONCLUSION: Prescribing of preventive therapies increased in both randomized groups over the study period. But academic detailing did not have an additional effect on changing prescribing over the postal bulletin alone.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmm044

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Naughton, C., Feely, J., & Bennett, K.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
ORCID
Venue
Family Practice
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-08-14
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
475-480
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
DOI
10.1093/fampra/cmm044
OpenAlex
W2155415010
Cited by
31
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
prescribing feedback, academic detailing, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, prophylaxis, statins, antiplatelet agents, warfarin, general practitioners, primary care prescribing
MeSH terms
Anticoagulants, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cardiovascular Diseases, Education, Medical, Continuing, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Postal Service, Warfarin, Program Evaluation, Cluster Analysis, Drug Utilization Review, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Feedback, Psychological, Diabetes Complications

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